In the United States, 27 states recognize the death penalty as a potential punishment for those convicted of a capital crime. Of those 27 states, Florida has recently been at the forefront of amending the requirements to sentence a defendant to death. Florida’s proposal to implement a supermajority standard for issuing a death sentence should reinvigorate the discussion surrounding the importance of ensuring that mental health services are both readily accessible and more affordable for Floridians. Instituting such a drastic change to the death penalty, without first mending an already dilapidated mental health system, is unlikely to deter future offenders from committing crimes that are subject to capital punishment.

Florida’s current standard for implementing the death penalty requires jurors to engage in a two-step process. First, the state must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the presence of at least one of sixteen “aggravating factors.” These aggravating factors include the murder of a law enforcement officer; killings that are especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; murders committed in cold blood; and premeditated and calculated murders. For this first step to be met, the jurors must agree unanimously. Aside from establishing that at least one of these aggravating factors is present, jurors must unanimously agree that these aggravating factors “outweigh” any mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances consider the defendant’s mental health, mental capacity, and considerations about how they were raised as children. The relationship between the death penalty and the mental health system is deeply intertwined. Oftentimes, the decision to sentence a defendant to death rests heavily upon these mitigating factors, all of which encompass an aspect of the defendant’s cognitive well-being.

Florida’s sentencing procedures have vacillated, particularly within the last decade. Historically, the presiding judge was given the discretion to impose capital punishment so long as a jury established a simple majority vote recommending the death penalty. The United States Supreme Court ruled this standard unconstitutional, noting that such discretion undermined the importance of an impartial jury and gave the presiding judge far too much power. In 2020, following the appointment of new justices, the Florida Supreme Court reversed its unanimity requirement and returned to the 10-2 supermajority standard.^[ii] As of 2023, Florida has proposed new legislation that, if passed, would further reduce the number of jurors needed to recommend a sentence of death from a 10-2 majority to an 8-4 majority. Furthermore, this new legislation would again allow a presiding judge to override a jury’s recommendation of a life sentence and impose the death penalty at their discretion. ^[iii]

Florida’s most recent push to amend these sentencing requirements is likely motivated by the public’s outrage in response to the verdict of Nicholas Cruz. Cruz was sentenced to life in prison for the horrific shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. Three of the twelve jurors voted to give Cruz a life sentence, saving him from the death penalty. ^[iv] Given the truly evil nature of Nicholas Cruz’s actions, the public’s anger was and is entirely justified. Governor DeSantis even took to the media to voice his frustration with the trial’s outcome, stating, “He is guilty. Everybody knew that from the beginning. Yet it takes years and years in this legal system that is not serving the best interest of victims. I just don’t think anything else is appropriate except the capital sentence in this case.” As it relates to Nicholas Cruz, Governor DeSantis’ frustration is shared by most Americans.

However, pushing for such a drastic reform to the law that is responsible for issuing the highest level of punishment cannot be driven primarily by emotionally charged responses from the public, nor is it necessarily the most surefire way to deter atrocities committed by individuals such as Nicholas Cruz from happening. Florida needs to begin by taking steps to improve its accessibility to mental health services, and the overall quality of those services.

Out of the 50 states, Florida ranks 48 in overall access to mental health care and invests significantly less in its mental health system than almost every other state. ^[v] Florida residents are much more likely to be forced out-of-network for mental health care, meaning that most of these services are offered by providers that do not recognize the vast majority of health insurance plans. This in turn increases the difficulty of finding help, as well as the overall costs associated with these services. ^[vi] A high number of Florida residents choose to not seek help as a direct result of these increased costs. Unless Florida can ensure broad insurance coverage for its residents, the prevalence of mental illness will continue to grow over time.

The lack of access to mental health resources also increases the likelihood that Floridians with severe mental illnesses will encounter issues with the criminal justice system. In the Miami-Dade County jail, for example, twenty percent of all inmates suffer from a mental illness that warrants psychiatric medication. Furthermore, inmates housed at the Miami-Dade County jail who suffer from mental illnesses remain incarcerated for up to eight times as long at seven times the cost compared to those charged with the same crime who do not suffer from mental illnesses. ^[vii]

Given that a jury must consider any mitigating factors before sentencing a defendant to death, it would be in Florida’s best interest, both in the short and long term, to focus its attention on improving the overall quality and accessibility to mental health services for all its citizens prior to making any changes to the sentencing requirements for the death penalty.  The presence of more affordable and accessible mental health services needs to be more commonplace, both statewide and nationwide, if any progress is to be made in reducing the frequency of these horrific crimes.