Many aspects of capital punishment have been debated extensively, such as its legality and cruelty. One such aspect is the role a defendant's mental functioning should play in the proceedings. In recent years the Supreme Court has barred the mentally retarded and juveniles from the death penalty due to their cognitive limitations and problems with behavioral control (Slobogin, 2003). This reasoning has prompted many in the fields of mental health and law to advocate for a similar bar for offenders with severe mental illness since their impairments create similar problems in judgment and behavioral control. The Supreme Court cited public consensus as its grounds in banning the mentally retarded and juveniles from sentences of death; however, public consensus on mentally ill capital offenders is not quite as clear. Few attempts have gauged public opinion on sentencing severely mentally ill offenders to death, and the little research that does exist has produced conflicting results. While polls show that Americans oppose the death penalty for the severely mental ill (Gallup, 2008), the literature shows that jurors are more likely to sentence these defendants to death (Charlotte School of Law [CSL], 2006). Second to the issue of barring the severely mentally ill from the death penalty is the issue of what mental health factors would be considered severe enough to qualify for a bar. There has been no previous research to gauge public opinion on these issues. Surveys were constructed to gauge opinion on the issue and were mailed randomly to 1,640 people throughout the United States. A total of 202 surveys were returned completed. Support was found for a bar from the death penalty for the mentally ill. However, the mental health factors that should comprise a bar received varied support and were less clear in determining which should comprise a bar. When given alternatives to a death sentence, participants overwhelmingly chose some type of life sentence. Public opinion appears to be an important aspect in the imposition of capital punishment upon the mentally ill.

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals’ right to trial by an impartial jury. However, empirical research indicates that the jury system is flawed, especially regarding judicial sentencing instructions. More specifically, jurors frequently misunderstand or misinterpret State patterned instructions. On a more encouraging note, there is evidence that comprehension of jury instructions can be improved. Thus, this research assessed improvement in juror comprehension using revised sentencing instructions. For the current investigation, participants included 201 volunteers called for jury duty in Western Tennessee. Data were generated via a questionnaire, which allowed for the collection of information relating to participants’ understanding of the sentencing instructions. Findings suggest that comprehension is low when jurors are only exposed to instructions written by the State. Furthermore, when jurors were given a more detailed explanation of certain problematic terminology, comprehension significantly increased. Policy implications of this research and directions for future improvement are discussed.