From misery to mission: forensic social workers on multidisciplinary mitigation teams.

Guin, Cecile C. ; Noble, Dorinda N. ; Merrill, Thomas S. 等

In June 2000 Feltus, age 39, was executed by the state of Louisiana after almost a decade of legal appeals. During his incarceration, social workers took a lead role on a multidisciplinary team that pieced together Feltus's life history and formed a lasting relationship with Feltus. His story demonstrates how different professionals can work together to meet legal, social, and spiritual needs of people affected by capital cases and to help the condemned person move from misery to mission.

Connecting the Dots: Life History and Empirical Inquiry

Louisiana, like the 37 other states that use the death penalty, provides for the defense to develop and describe "mitigating factors and circumstances." These circumstances, which explain how a person found guilty of murder may have arrived at that point in life, are identified and integrated into the guilt and penalty phase of a capital trial. They link client characteristics and history to the crime, ensuring that the jury may consider those characteristics when deciding on a death penalty or a life-in-prison penalty (Gum, 2001). Although states vary in their reliance on mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of a capital trial, it is increasingly common for defense attorneys to work with experts to develop extensive life histories of people being tried for capital crimes. If factors emerging from this life history are seen as mitigating by the jury, the law allows a life sentence instead of a death sentence. (Conversely, the jury may view certain factors as aggravating, or reasons that defendant should b e condemned to death.) Mitigating factors do not excuse behavior; they explain behavior.

Life history research is an extensive empirical inquiry into a person's life; it is empirical in that the questions guiding the life research are derived from domains that have been empirically linked to how criminal behavior develops. It connects the dots between what we know empirically about criminal behavior and what we know about the defendant's life. Feltus's case, which we refer to throughout the article, illustrates this linkage.

In 1991 Feltus's manager on the job fired him. What started as Feltus's plea to be reinstated turned into armed robbery. For reasons Feltus could never explain, during the course of this robbery, he began shooting, leaving his manager forever paralyzed and a former friend and coworker dead.

Feltus's case ultimately attracted national public and professional attention. The Office of Social Service Research and Development (OSSRD), an arm of the School of Social Work at Louisiana State University, took a major mitigation role in the postconviction phase of the death penalty case. Social workers with OSSRD, in tandem with other professionals on a multidisciplinary team, labored to decipher what factors propelled Feltus to commit armed robbery and murder on that unhappy day.

Developing a comprehensive life history depends on several critical activities: forming a working multidisciplinary team, conducting a thorough social history investigation, obtaining and analyzing important records, developing a relationship with the client and his or her family, advocating for the client and client's family, and developing a theme linking the client's characteristics with the crime (Alfonso & Baur, 1986; Andrews, 1991; Ashford, Macht, & Mylym, 1987; Norton, 1992; Schroeder, 2001). How successful the mitigation efforts ultimately are is directly related to how effectively the multidisciplinary team develops and presents factual evidence for jury consideration.

Importance of Factual Mitigating Evidence

Most states that allow death penalty sentences operate under a legal statute describing allowable mitigating evidence. For example, Louisiana Revised Statutes (LRS) Article 905.5 delineates circumstances considered as mitigation, including

* the defendant had no prior criminal history,

* the defendant was operating under extreme mental or emotional disturbance,

* the defendant was under domination of another person,

* the defendant believed there was a moral justification or extenuating circumstances for his/her conduct,

* the defendant's capacity to conform his behavior to the law was impaired by mental disease, defect or intoxication,

* the defendant was young,

* the defendant's participation was minor. (LRS Article 905.5)

In Texas the statute for considering mitigating evidence, which developed out of the case of a mentally retarded man convicted of killing a famous football player's sister (Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989), focuses all mitigation on issues of moral culpability and future dangerousness (Morrow & Morrow, 2000). Although the Texas statute implies that mitigation is broader than moral culpability, case decisions indicate that mitigation is typically determined on issues of culpability (Morrow & Morrow).

Although state statutes on mitigation vary, most of them allow evidence related to child abuse, mental illness or impairment, and the defendant's historical link to the crime. These factors do not excuse the crime. However, if the jury understands the link between these factors and the crime, the jury may spare the defendant's life, even if future dangerousness is probable. In reality, one of the most powerful mitigating factors is the jury's lingering doubt about the guilt of the defendant; that was not the case in Feltus's trial.

When Feltus was arrested for murder a few hours after the shooting, he merely hung his head and mumbled that he 'didn't mean to kill nobody." Until his death, he never denied his guilt; he always exhibited remorse for the shootings.

Use of a Multidisciplinary Team to Develop a Life History

Because it provides a variety of perspectives, a team approach results in a picture of the defendant as the center of ever-widening concentric circles of influence (that is, defendant, family, neighborhood, school, community, society), each one having factors and stressors that, interacting with each other, affect human development and behavior (Miller, 1995). The life history that emerges from this team approach is then linked to substantiated findings that illuminate the risk factors connected to criminal behavior.

The job of the multidisciplinary team is to link the client's history, life circumstances, and the commission of the crime accurately and clearly. That history is often complex and reveals that the client's behavior stems from a number of interacting factors. No single expert can address all these factors, which is why the multidisciplinary team is so important (Holdman, 2000). How to improve multidisciplinary collaboration and coordination has become an important professional topic because of the increased and improved work a well-developed team can produce (Irvine, Phillips, Fisher, & Cloonan, 1990; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). In capital mitigation, where developing a holistic individual picture of the client is vital to accurately assess the convicted person, it is helpful to convene a team of knowledgeable people. That individualization is extremely important in sentencing: jurors examine legal issues to reach a verdict, but they examine the individual in the sentencing phase.

A comprehensive life history should include the following elements:

* personality factors--Coping strategies: abilities to solve problems, handle stress, and manage anger; feelings of self-worth, self-confidence, and competence in social relationships; ability to manage life survival tasks (managing money, holding jobs, etc.); spiritual and moral perspectives (how the individual perceives his or her responsibilities and relationships toward others and society)

* social factors--Age, gender, race, ethnicity, outstanding physical features; geographical environment and stability of life situation; religious beliefs and relationships, community connections, and important friendships; and any public social services received

* health factors-Mental orientation to time, place, person, and circumstances; health status (illnesses, injuries, disabilities, or unusual birth circumstances); mental health status, competence, and family history of mental concerns; and medication, substance or alcohol abuse, and other chemical issues

* family factors--Family of origin constellation and configuration; situations of trauma, violence, abuse and neglect; out-of-home placement; extended family and outside relationships during childhood and adulthood; present family constellation and configuration; number of marriages, children, and divorces; and any traumas and violence

* education factors--Grade attainment and age-appropriateness of school setting; level of achievement; school progress and attitude toward learning; over or underachievement; social relationships, behavior, and extracurricular activities in school settings; and native intelligence and potential, mental or learning disabilities, and documented level of intellectual functioning (such as IQ scores)

* economic and employment factors--Family income and education levels; sources of income, types of employment, and stability of employment; living environment and community demographics; and military experience

* criminal factors--History of immediate and extended family interaction with law enforcement; number and types of prior offenses; age at first contact with law enforcement; conduct and progress during incarcerations; understanding of legal processes and ability to participate in defense; and perspective toward the crime (sense of remorse, denial, or defiance) (Gum, 1991).

Sources of information are varied, but include official records and interviews with personnel of schools, health care facilities, correctional institutions, and churches. Relatives, neighbors, and the defendant are critical sources of data, as was true in Feltus's case.

Details of Feltus's birth and early life are sketchy. Born in New York, he was abandoned by his birth parents at age 3. Whether he had been abused is unknown, but Feltus was unable to speak and was not toilet trained; he was very dirty and undersized for his age; and he suffered from nightmares. He was adopted by a Louisiana couple who reportedly abused alcohol, Feltus, and each other. The couple later separated; Feltus's father dropped out of his life entirely, and his mother gave Feltus to her mother when he was 13. His connections with his mother after that time were tenuous and spotty. Feltus's grandmother, to keep him "safe," did not allow him to leave the home's fenced yard or to play with other children. Feltus's social relationships were further constrained because he had a severe speech impediment. Feltus and his grandmother had a loving relationship, but he had few other family connections. His developmental delays and absenteeism led to poor school performance. During his childhood, Feltus suffered several serious blows to the head and complained of headaches. At 18, with a fourth-grade reading level, virtually no friendships, and a juvenile record for burglary, Feltus dropped out of school. He would spend most of the rest of his life behind bars.

The Forensic Social Worker on the Team

The role of the social worker in mitigation is to produce objective, reliable information for the jury to consider. Social work, from its genesis to the present, has had a close relationship to legal processes and forensic work, including legal efforts to protect children (for example, abuse and neglect, adoption and custody, child labor laws, and youth work and juvenile probation), legal avenues to protect society (for example, crime prevention, probation and parole, work in prison systems, and victim protection and rehabilitation), and other legal attempts to improve societal relationships and individual protections (such as developing licensing laws and testifying in malpractice cases). Through NASW and other groups, many social workers have also highlighted prevention rather than punishment for crime; some have encouraged society to re-examine its reliance on the death penalty.

Forensic social work is the bridge between the criminal justice system and the mental health system (Brennen, Gedrich, Jacoby, Tardy, & Tyson, 1986). The most important task for the forensic social worker is to develop a trusting relationship with the client; only through that relationship can the most intimate details of the client's life emerge, such as the details social workers learned from Feltus.

After dropping out of school, Feltus worked at various minimum-wage jobs, but had limited work skills. At age 19 he committed armed robbery and spent the next 10 years in prison. A physically slight man, Feltus was raped early in his jail tenure and later developed sexual relationships with other inmates, about which he always felt confused and guilty. In prison he learned to act tough for self-protection; consequently, he received many disciplinary write-ups for fighting. It was also in prison that Feltus increasingly used drugs. He continued using drugs after he returned to the civilian world, and in fact had been using on the day he committed murder. Feltus accomplished one goal in prison that brought him pride: he achieved the GED, although he entered the program several times before completing it.

The social worker is the logical professional to develop the initial social history, because he or she is educated to achieve a holistic perspective and is trained in interviewing and therapeutic skills. Those skills help her or him uncover many of the defendant's pertinent life experiences and give a balanced interpretation of how those life experiences are explained by current theory and human behavior research (Andrews, 1991). Attorneys may not have the time, interviewing skills, or knowledge of explanatory literature to discover and weave together mitigating factors (Barker & Branson, 2000). Social workers were critical in uncovering Feltus's past experiences.

When released from 10 years in prison, Feltus returned to his grandmother and learned that her Supplemental Security Income benefits would be cut if he stayed. Consequently, Feltus lived mostly in an old car, washing up at his grandmother's house. He continued to indulge in drugs while working minimum-wage jobs and committing petty thefts to bring in money. Although he had limited job training, Feltus was a likeable guy and was initially an enthusiastic worker. While working at McDonald's, Feltus met and fell in love with Martha. Their relationship was tempestuous. Feltus spent all his money on items to impress Martha (including a $900 necklace and a fur coat, neither of which she liked or kept). He rented an apartment, hoping that Martha would live with him, but when she refused, he could not pay rent or utilities. All this increased his sense of desperation; he was working two jobs, getting very little rest, and sometimes committing burglaries. His emotional turmoil, lack of sleep, and drug use contributed to his poor work, and he soon quit his job. Sister Helen Prejean (the noted death penalty opponent and author of Dead Man Walking) and Feltus' social workers later surmised that losing this job was a pivotal moment for Feltus: His strong need for intimacy and love, which Martha superficially met, would now be denied.

Other Professionals on the Team

The initial picture presented by the social worker must be thorough. It is an integral part of the work for the next team member, the forensic psychologist, who must decide which domains (that is, cognitive, personality, intellectual, or neuro-psychological) to assess, which battery of assessment tools best uncover and describe the psychological functioning of the defendant, and which (if any) additional medical, neurological, or psychiatric evaluations to pursue.

Psychology is a data-driven discipline that uses quantitative methods to describe human behavior. Thus, forensic psychologists bring a unique body of knowledge and training to the team and use that knowledge to deepen the understanding of the history developed by the social worker, building a robust picture of the defendant. This robust portrayal helps those who try the facts in the guilt phase of the trial determine the defendant's competence to stand trial and his or her volitional and cognitive capacity at the time of the offense. In the penalty phase, this information is presented in ways that link the mitigating factors to the offense for which the defendant has now been found guilty. Social workers can illuminate the "what" of a defendant's history, whereas forensic psychologists can describe "why" the defendant reached this point in life; the resultant collaboration makes the convicted person more human for the jury (Bartol & Bartol, 1987; Wagner, 1995).

Other team members contribute invaluable elements of life history. A psychiatrist may be required to assess psychiatric illnesses, brain dysfunctions, and drug interactions. A spiritual advisor may assess the defendant's understanding of the nature and consequences of his behavior. An expert in domestic violence may help sort out the effects of family violence, and an expert in developmental disabilities may add insight as to how a defendant perceived the world at the time of the crime. A neurologist may provide guidance in the effects of physical injuries and illnesses; a geneticist may speak to the effects of genetic conditions. The team may also include family members, mental health workers, church members, community advocates for death penalty defendants, and students who function as researchers, social historians, record keepers, or communication links (Reed & Rohrer, 2000). People with expertise in almost all these areas contributed to understanding Feltus's complex life.

After leaving McDonald's, Feltus took a job at Cajun Fried Chicken. One day, Martha informed him that their relationship, such as it was, was over. Feltus was so upset that he was unable to continue working and lost his job at Cajun Fried Chicken. Distraught and under the influence of drugs, he approached the manager to try to regain his job. His manager offered to loan him money, but would not reinstate Feltus. Meanwhile, another employee--whom Feltus had previously considered a friend--heard this exchange, lost her temper, and called Feltus some choice derogatory names. Feltus was furious. Then he saw the safe: It was open and the money in it seemed to promise a resolution to his problems. He went to his car, retrieved a pistol that he had "bought off some guy on 27th Street" and returned to the restaurant, where disaster unfolded. As a result of the events of that day, the manager is living life in a wheelchair, and the employee who used the unsavory descriptions is dead. Feltus was arrested in a matter of hours and charged with first-degree murder. The district attorney announced that he would seek the death penalty. Feltus was intensely depressed in jail and threatened suicide. When asked to draw a picture of his house, the house he produced was boarded and padlocked; when asked to draw a picture of himself, he drew a body, tears seeping from its eyes, lying in a casket.

Coordinating the Team

Defense attorneys must integrate all the findings of the mitigation team into the facts of the case so that they can be effectively presented to the capital jury. The rest of the team can help structure the "telling of the story" so that it effectively communicates how the defendant reached this point in his or her life. The clearest rendition of the story may demand that one or more of the experts testify, elaborating on and clarifying the life history. The social worker is a good choice for team facilitator because of the multidisciplinary nature of social work education. The breadth of knowledge that is social work's domain can be critical in dealing with a prisoner like Feltus.

Although his attorneys did not know it, Feltus was given a number of powerful drugs on an erratic schedule before and during his trial. During the trial, he was never given his morning dose of medication, but sometimes at night, he was given both morning and evening doses together, as well as occasional "sleeping pills." On trial days, Feltus was awakened about 3:45 A.M., removed from his cell around 5 A.M., taken to Central Booking until about 7 A.M., and then taken to the courthouse. His attorney stated that at times she had to wake Feltus up as he sat at the counsel table. One of the social workers on Feltus's team was a medical social worker. In Feltus's postconviction case, this social worker, because of her training in reviewing medical records, located a second medical log and discovered that Feltus had not been given his medication on a regular basis during his trial. The first log recorded when the medicine left the infirmary, but the second log documented that the inmate was in his cell and was obse rved taking his medicine. Feltus's second log clearly documented "inmate in court," corroborating the social worker's belief that Feltus's erratic behavior during trial was linked to missed medication.

The Team Serves Diverse Functions

All team members contribute vital elements; no one discipline can tell the defendant's complex life story. Not only does the multidisciplinary team serve a function for the judge and jury, but it also serves a function for the defendant and his or her family. The defendant in a capital case has multiple needs and problems, which are exacerbated by the stress of a potential death sentence. The defendant's family is caught up in this terrible drama, and their reactions often become increasingly problematic as pivotal dates of trials, sentencing, appeals, and imposition of sentence come and go. The multidisciplinary team can help the defendant and his or her family understand and grow emotionally through these highly charged and often traumatic events.

The team may also serve a function for victims' families and survivors of the crime. The suffering of these individuals is enormous. The mitigation team can provide information that helps victims and their families understand why these terrible events occurred. Although this understanding does not restore a loved one to a grieving family, it may help the family to see the behavior as not entirely random, but flowing out of factors that do not justify but may explain the defendant's choices.

The victim's family endures feelings that are unimaginable to most other people; they also suffer from great isolation. Even the prosecution team often fails to realize this isolation and may neglect to keep the family fully informed about legal proceedings. Because social workers are family advocates, they often deal with the distraught surviving victims or victims' families. When a social worker begins the mitigation investigation, he or she may request a meeting with family members to elicit their views on the homicide. In fact, it is preferable to attempt family contact early in the case, under direction of the attorney and using skills appropriate to working with victims of severely violent crimes. That allows the social worker, when presenting the life story in court, to intelligently answer the inquiry commonly put to the social worker: "Have you contacted the victim's family?" To conduct a thorough investigation, it is important, albeit awkward, to at least advise the victim's family of the life histo ry investigation, obtain their feedback, and provide them with an opportunity to ask questions.

The social worker may also deal with the victim's family in the postconviction stage. It is vitally important to assess how the victim's family feels and explore their responses to a possible life plea, should the postconviction process favor another guilt or penalty phase. Many families do not want to relive the pain of another trial. An effective victim's service agency can help mitigation team members understand how best to deal with victim's families.

The social worker usually has contact with the victim's family during jury deliberations. Although many jurisdictions have a relatively secluded place to take members of the victim's family, more often than not, the defendant's family and the victim's families are in a waiting room together, anticipating the jury's verdict. Because the social worker may be with the offender's family at this time, he or she may also be the natural one to offer assistance to the victim's family during this stressful time. For example, social workers may comfort the victim's family during their moment of grief after testifying. In a recent Louisiana case, when the verdict of death was handed down, the victim's elderly grandmother went into a diabetic-related crisis because of the high emotion. Rarely is a social worker or advocate available for the victim's family, so social workers on the multidisciplinary team assisted her.

Although historically this type of involvement might have been considered a conflict, the nature of death penalty work often requires objective oversight by an ethical social worker to ensure that both the victim and the offender's family are treated humanely. Because criminal prosecution and defense is adversarial, the social worker is often the only person who is alert to the traumatic effect of the trial on everyone: lawyers, judges, jury members, victim's family, and offender's family. This philosophy is consistent with the progressive move towards restorative justice, which redefines crime as an injury to the victim and the community (Pranis, 2000). Instead of focusing on adversarial support for the victim or the offender, supporters of restorative justice center on peaceful resolution and repair for all involved. Restorative justice initiatives emphasize training for victims of severely violent crime offered by the School of Social Work, Center for Restorative Justice and Peace, at the University of Min nesota (Umbreit, 2001). Social workers cannot abandon their advocacy role for the client, but they must intervene when the adversarial nature of the justice system threatens to cause undue harm to innocent people.

The Role of Experts

Feltus's guilt was never in question, and he was convicted. During the sentencing phase, as his grandmother pleaded for mercy for him, Feltus lost his composure, pounding and overturning the counsel table in the presence of the jury. The jury sentenced him to death, a conclusion supported by the families of both his victims. Feltus was transported to death row at Angola (Louisiana State Penitentiary), where he remained for the balance of his life.

The first function of the mitigation team is to compile a complete social history. The social history guides mental health diagnosis; it does not guarantee a certain diagnosis, and the team must be prepared for surprises.

Any expert who is brought into a mitigation team should be chosen for her or his specialty, not for general expertise, because the expert may be called on to back up assertions with substance on the witness stand. Some mitigation teams have suffered embarrassment, and the defendant has suffered worse results, when an expert brought in by the mitigation team turned out to be less expert than first thought; the team should carefully check the vita, publications, and communication skills (particularly as a witness) of any expert before contracting with her or him. The team should beware of any expert who does not see the need to read the social history, or who proposes to assess the defendant in a 45-minute interview. The team also should consider the expert's philosophy toward the death penalty versus life in prison.

Sister Helen Prejean, who was later nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for her death penalty work, became involved with Feltus's case and identified the link between Feltus's deep sense of abandonment to his insatiable need for human contact and intimacy. She linked Feltus to a dedicated spiritual advisor from an Episcopal Church, who became part of the multidisciplinary mitigation team. Besides that advisor, the team included a licensed social worker (director of OSSRD at LSU School of Social Work), another experienced clinical social worker, a psychologist, and two postconviction attorneys. The state provided basic mitigation funds as required bylaw, but much of the work was offered pro bono. Through several years of communication with his spiritual advisor, Feltus began to make peace with himself for his actions. He began to formulate a life goal: to prevent young people from starting down the tortured path he had traveled.

Making the Team Work Effectively

The mitigation team faces a bleak situation, where success is measured in "life without parole" instead of "death." For this reason, it is critical that the team members tend to their own mental health and bolster one another's enthusiasm and sense of mission in this work.

The team's work is aided by their being in close geographical proximity, although in many cases, such as Feltus's, distance between team members is a logistical barrier. Communication is critical; because resources are usually scarce, team members must share their knowledge and disseminate critical case information to avoid needless duplication and work.

Angola is a vast 18,000-acre facility with six prison camps and more than 5,000 inmates. It is bounded on three sides by the Mississippi River and is geographically isolated. Nevertheless, the team maintained frequent contact with Feltus. He created workbooks, a video, and (with the help of OSSRD) an autobiography to exhort young people to avoid the perils of drugs and crime. He became a model for other prisoners about how to give meaning to life on death row. Although he continued to have difficulty handling his emotions, he was able to participate meaningfully in his defense and his fight for life.

The facilitator can help the team make sure that all logistical issues are addressed; he or she should ensure that the defendant and all potential mitigation witnesses have signed release-of-information forms, and that the defendant and his or her family understand the penalty or appeals process. Securing records can take months and sometimes years, so the facilitator must learn the process of amassing needed records and coordinate it as soon as possible. Jail medical records, for instance, must be requested separately from regular jail records; special education records and disciplinary records must be requested separately from general education data.

Team members must be fully aware of the ethical standards of each discipline represented on the team, because they often must grapple with difficult ethical decisions. For instance, a defendant or informant may share information with a single team member and ask that member to keep it confidential. A team member may clash with the attorney's conception of how the case should proceed. A member may become so emotionally involved with the defendant or an informant that he or she loses perspective and credibility. Because no ethical issue has an easy answer, team members should consult honestly with one another to resolve dilemmas--dilemmas that often go far beyond the cursory ethics education presented in much of graduate education.

Pulling the Team Together

Integrating these diverse elements to reach a common goal requires team members to invest a great deal of time and intellectual energy. The process involves much study, reading, planning, and coordination. The social worker is often the person responsible for pulling the team together (Alfonso & Baur, 1986).

The team, under the guidance of the defense attorneys, must cultivate character witnesses on the defendant's behalf, often encouraging potential witnesses to miss work or to travel some distance to testify for the defendant, as well as giving them considerable communication suggestions so they can be effective witnesses. Sometimes, however, team members may have to reconcile their desires to pursue "slight chance" instead of "no chance" with the defendant's decision to accept the death sentence and forgo further legal machinations (Nelson, 2000).

The defense attorneys must be ready to educate the mitigation team about the rules of law that apply to the case and must be willing to share ideas with team members about how to proceed in mitigation. Team members, conversely, can educate the attorneys about how to frame questions to highlight mitigating factors in the defendant's experience. Team members are uniquely qualified to provide insights about what mitigating factors might resonate with nonlawyers, because unless sentence is to be pronounced from the bench, nonlawyers who are the jury members will determine the sentence.

The most important member of the team, however, is always the defendant. The more the team can think of ways to humanize the defendant to the judge and jury (such as by showing pictures of the defendant at little-league games, or by showing a video of the defendant's hometown), the more successful mitigation will be (Bright, 2000; Curtis, 2001). However, some defendants resist or sabotage mitigation team efforts or are unable to understand the process. The more team members can overcome resistance and respect the defendant and what he can bring to his own defense, the more successful they will be.

One critical issue is that team members must understand the concepts and constraints of work products, attorney--client privilege, and confidentiality (Holdman, 2000). They must also be prepared to deal with intragroup conflicts. And, as was true for Feltus early in his incarceration on death row, many defendants are suicidal. The team needs continuing education on how to deal with suicidal people.

Life on death row was always difficult for Feltus. Particularly early in his tenure on the row, Feltus struggled with suicidal ideas. Ultimately, however, Feltus wanted to live; he wanted mercy. For the first time in his existence, he had some reason to live. He wanted to work with other prisoners to improve their adaptation to prison and encourage young people to avoid crime. The efforts of his mitigation team lengthened his life. His date for execution was set six times; five times it was stayed, once only an hour before execution. But after nine years of effort, all avenues of legal remedies were exhausted, and the team had to relinquish Feltus to death.

Although professional education can prepare social workers for many elements of death penalty work, nothing can prepare the members of the mitigation team for the internal conflict and emotional pain associated with advocating for a condemned person. The social worker feels deep sympathy for the victim's family, disappointment in what often appears to be an unjust legal system, and heart-wrenching sadness when saying goodbye to a condemned person.

Despite sorrow over their client's fate, the members of the mitigation team knew Feltus had found a measure of peace in his religious faith and in the support of those who loved him. Although both his mother and father had died while he was in prison, his grandmother faithfully stood by him to the end. When notified that it was time to go, the social worker hugged Feltus, looked deeply into his eyes, and told him how genuinely proud she was of him and his many accomplishments during the past few years. She and the attorney watched Feltus go to the room where he would die; despite her intense emotional pain, the social worker knew that being a member of Feltus's team was probably her most important career role. Feltus, as he had on many occasions, begged forgiveness from the family of the murdered victim and from the person who was in frail physical and emotional health as a result of Feltus's attack. While he was being injected with lethal drugs, Feltus received word that the surviving victim forgave him. Fel tus had arranged (with his spiritual advisor) his memorial service, which he wanted to be a celebration of life and of new beginnings. That service was very emotional for Feltus's team. His transformation from a man of misery to a man of mission inspired them to see the best in people, even people who appear to be beyond hope.

Original manuscript received October 10, 2000

Final revision received May 25, 2001

Accepted November 27, 2001

References

Alfonso, C., & Baur, K. (1986, June). Enhancing capital defense: Role of the forensic clinical social worker. The Champion, pp. 26-29.

Andrews, A. B. (1991). Social work expert testimony regarding mitigation in capital sentencing proceedings. Social Work, 36, 440-445.

Ashford, J. B., Macht, M. W., & Mylym, M. (1987). Advocacy by social workers in the public defender's office. Social Work, 32, 199-203.

Barker, R. L., & Branson, D. M. (2000). Forensic social work. New York: Haworth Press.

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (1987). History of forensic psychology. In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 3-21). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brennan, T. P., Gedrich, A. E., Jacoby, S. F., Tardy, M. J., & Tyson, K. B. (1986). Forensic social work: Practice and vision. Social Casework, 67, 34-39.

Bright, S. (2000, September). The theme for life throughout a capital case. Paper presented at the Making the Case for Life IV Conference, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Houston.

Curtis, M. (2001, May 4). Insanity defense. Paper presented at the Criminal Law Continuing Education Seminar. El Paso County Public Defender's Association, El Paso, TX.

Guin, C. C. (1991). Juvenile to adult criminality in Louisiana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas-Arlington, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(5), 1894.

Guin, C. C. (2001, May). Supporting the theme: Developing effective mitigation evidence in capital cases. Paper presentation and training at the Criminal Law Continuing Education Seminar, El Paso Public Defender's Association, El Paso, TX.

Holdman, S. (2000, September). Mitigation investigation and jury selection in capital cases. Paper presented at the Making the Case for Life IV Conference, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Houston, TX.

Irvine, A. A., Phillips, E. K., Fisher, M., & Cloonan, P. (1990). Out of the ivory tower: The value of collaborative research. Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 10(3/4), 117-129.

Louisiana Revised Statutes: 905.5.

Mattessich, P., & Monsey, B. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work--A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Miller, J. (September/October 1995). Expanding the spheres of mitigation evidence. Capital Report 44, 2-6.

Morrow, J., & Morrow, R. (2000, September). Mitigation investigation and jury selection in capital cases. Paper presented at Making the Case for Life IV Conference, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Houston.

Nelson, L. (2000, May/June). Dying to please. Angolite: Louisiana State Penitentiary News Magazine, 25(3), 22-27.

Norton, L. (1992, May). Capital cases, mitigation investigations. The Champion, pp. 43-45.

Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).

Pranis, K. (2000). Building community support for restorative justice principles and strategies. Minneapolis: Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Reed, J. G., & Rohrer, G. E. (2000). Death penalty mitigation: A challenge for social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20, 187-199.

Schroeder, J. (2001, May). Social worker's role in death penalty mitigation investigations. Paper presented at The 18th Annual Conference of the National Organization of Forensic Social Work: Social Work and the Law, Philadelphia.

Umbreit, M. S. (2001). The handbook of victim offender mediation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wagner, M. M. (1995). Neuropsychological evidence in criminal defense: Rationale and guidelines for enlisting an expert. Advocate, 17(3), 8-11.

Cecile C. Gum, PhD, LCSW, is director, Office of Social Service Research and Development, School of Social Work, Louisiana State University, 311 Huey P. Long Fieldhouse, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; e-mail: [email protected]. Dorinda N. Noble, PhD, ACSW, LCSW, is director, MSW Program, School of Social Work, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos. Thomas S. Merrill, PhD, is a clinical psychologist, Thomas S. Merrill, Inc., Honolulu. An earlier version of this article was presented at the National Organization of Forensic Social Workers Conference, May 8, 2000, Palm Springs, CA.