Mental Health Policy: US State Virginia SB 1137 (Essay Sample)

Mental Health Policy: Virginia SB 1137
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Mental Health Policy: Virginia SB 1137
Introduction
The Virginia Senate Bill 1137 seeks to exempt defendants with severe mental illness from capital punishment. The bill was passed by the Senate on January 17, 2019, as an amendment to sections 19.2-264.3:1.3, 19.2-264.3:3, and 19.2-264.4 of the Code of Virginia relating to the death penalty and severe mental illness (Legiscan, 2019). It states that a person determined to have been suffering from severe mental illness at the time of committing a capital offense shall not be eligible for the death penalty. It also sets out the procedures for establishing whether the defendant had a critical mental illness at the time of committing the offense through the appointment of expert evaluators. However, the burden of proving such mental illness lies with the defendant (Legiscan, 2019). 
Capital punishment has been part of the U.S. criminal justice system for centuries. However, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were introduced to ensure the just and fair treatment of persons facing criminal proceedings. The Eighth Amendment provides for procedural aspects as to when and how a jury may impose the death penalty. It states inter alia, ‘nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted (Lee & Hall, 2017).” Therefore, by protecting people with severe mental illness from the death penalty, the bill provides a means of administering justice in a humane manner, according to the spirit of the Eighth Amendment. 
Historical Background of the Policy
The Virginia SB 1137 was sponsored by Senator Barbara Favola and was referred to the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice on December 30, 2018 (Legiscan, 2019). It defines eligibility for the death penalty and guidelines associated with mental illness. It was approved on January 17, 2019, and assigned to the Senate Courts Subcommittee, which recommended passing by indefinitely. On February 19, 2019, it was left in the Courts of Justice. The issue of whether the defendant suffered from severe mental illness at the time of the offense is to be determined by the jury or judge. 
Problems that Necessitated the Policy
There have been no clear federal regulations formulated pertaining to capital punishment for individuals with severe mental illness. The courts have defined the scope of application of the death penalty (Bonnie, 2007). In Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court disqualified the death sentence for minors and persons with intellectual disabilities. However, the identification process for rulings of mental illness status has been complicated and indecisive (Shaw, Scurich & Faigman, 2018). However, the identification process for rulings of mental illness status has been complicated and indecisive. Moreover, even though many states have aligned court rulings with the Eighth Amendment to guarantee justifiable representation in the courtroom, many rulings vary by state mandates of clinical diagnosis for mental illness, resulting in different conclusions for comparable death sentences.
Pre and Post-trial mental illness diagnoses vary amongst state laws. Currently twelve states allow juries to decide the mental status of a person in post-conviction verses the pretrial phase that is conducted by a judge. Indications of unequal representation for individuals with mental illness prove to be a dominant outcome when the mental status is ruled by the jury post-trial compared to the rulings of judges. Judges determine noncapital sentences leaving capital punishment in the hands of juries. Due to the amount of evidence involved in a capital punishment case and prior exposure to atrocious crimes, the opinions of jurors can be negatively impacted, resulting in biased opinions against such individuals during the judicial process. This reaction leaves jurors “more hesitant than judges to find that a defendant is intellectually disabled,” leaving little room for the status of mental illness to be considered during the sentencing phase of the trial (Shaw et al., 2018). Different state regulations specify how courts are to conceive a diagnosis of mental illness during court proceedings. Some states confine diagnosis upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSM), volume 5. While other states commence decisions based on cases resulting in biased opinions, rulings suggest that for mental illness to be considered during the trial phase, the perpetrated criminal must have experienced mental illness before and during the committed offense but, “does not exempt someone from the death penalty” (Lee & Hall, 2017). States recognize schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar, and major depressive disorders as common mental health diagnoses (Lee & Hall, 2017). 
Therefore, there has been a gap in the protection of severely mentally ill individuals who have committed capital offenses. The Virginia SB 1137 fills this gap. Defendants suffering from severe mental disorders pose the risk of false convictions or unfair sentences, and there was a need to introduce a policy that cushions them from cruel punishment. However, the regulation does not imply non-imposition of punishment; they still face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole if found guilty. 
Description of the Policy
As earlier mentioned, the goal of Virginia SB 1137 is to protect defendants of capital offenses from the death penalty. The regulation provides for the appointment of qualified experts to assist the defendant in preparing his or her evidence and states that the lack of expert assistance amounts to an unfair trial. It also defines severe mental illness as the ‘exhibition of active psychotic symptoms that substantially impair a person’s ability to appreciate the nature and consequences of their actions, to exercise rational judgment, or conform with the requirements of the law.’ The judge or jury is responsible for determining the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the defendant and decide whether he or she qualifies as severely mentally ill. If it is so determined, the judge or jury may impose punishment, which does not include the death penalty. 
Analysis of the Bill in Relation to the Recovery Oriented Perspective
The goal of the recovery oriented mental health practice is to help individuals with mental illness reengage in an active life, understand their abilities and disabilities, regain meaning and purpose in life, and cultivate a positive sense of self and personal autonomy (Roe & Swarbrick, 2007). Recovery is not synonymous with cure. It refers to internal and external conditions that empower and give hope to patients of mental illness (Roe & Swarbrick, 2007).
The Virginia SB 1137 is consistent with the recovery oriented perspective. The basis of the bill is that defendants with severe mental illness are not capable of making the right choices because their illness affect