INCLUSION DAILY EXPRESS -- The Death Penalty and Intellectual Disability In The USA

Inclusion Daily Express

International Disability Rights News Service
Click here for today's headlines

Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected since 1999.
Click here for daily or weekly delivery . . . OR
Try Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .

DEATH BY I.Q.? THE DEATH PENALTY AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY IN THE USA

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
--Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified December 15, 1791

"There is insufficient evidence of a national consensus against executing mentally retarded people convicted of capital offenses for us to conclude that it is categorically prohibited by the Eighth Amendment."
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, addressing the question of whether the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" when applied to people with mental retardation, in the 1989 ruling on John Paul Penry

"Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses . . . they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct. Moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants."
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in the 2002 decision which ruled that such executions are "cruel and unusual punishment"

June 21, 2002: Executions Of Convicts With Mental Retardation Are "Cruel And Unusual" Punishment, High Court Rules

Background:
Mental Retardation And the Death Penalty In the USA
By Dave Reynolds (published in the July 2001 Ragged Edge Magazine)

Supreme Court To Decide On Death Penalty For Inmates With Mental Retardation:
Daryl Atkins
John Paul Penry Case Before High Court Twice
Ernest P. McCarver Saved By Supreme Court After "Last Meal"

News on Death Penalty Listed by State
Confessed Murderers With Mental Retardation Found Not Guilty
Convicted "Murderers" Convictions Overturned
Other Resources

OTHER RESOURCES:
Death Penalty Information Center
Human Rights Watch
Death Row Roll Call

2013:
December 4 Hall v. Florida: Disability Case at the U.S. Supreme Court -- What You Need to Know

2001
April 3: Report Calls For End of Death Penalty For Hundreds of Inmates

Report Calls For End of Death Penalty For Hundreds of Inmates
April 3, 2001

NEW YORK, NEW YORK--On March 20, Human Rights Watch published a fifty-page report entitled, "Beyond Reason: The Death Penalty and Offenders with Mental Retardation".

The human rights group examined the cases of 35 people executed since a ban on the death penalty was lifted in 1977. The comprehensive report looks at the states' capital punishment laws and how mental retardation is measured. It also give detailed accounts of how the rights of those sentenced may have been compromised.

Human Rights Watch recommends that, until the death penalty is banned in the United States, executions of people with mental retardation should not be allowed under any circumstances.

[Editor's note: Unfortunately, in their efforts to advocate for convicts who have disabilities, the group reinforces the stereotypes of adults with mental retardation as being "stupid", "incompetent" and "child-like".]

The report is available on line:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat

Executions Of Convicts With Mental Retardation Are "Cruel And Unusual" Punishment, High Court Rules
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
June 21, 2002
WASHINGTON, DC--The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" when it is used on people determined to have mental retardation and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In its 6-3 decision on Atkins v. Virginia, the Court cited the growing number of states that have decided on their own to stop such executions in the past 13 years since the Justices ruled on the issue. Two states with a death penalty banned it for such convicts in 1989, when the Supreme Court determined that there was no "national consensus" against executing convicts with mental retardation. Since that ruling, however, sixteen more states have adopted similar guidelines.

The Court noted this change in the nation's attitude and added that defendants considered to have mental retardation do not have the same ability as others to defend themselves in a court. The Court also reasoned that it was "not persuaded that the execution of mentally retarded criminals will measurably advance the deterrent or the retributive purpose of the death penalty.''

"Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct,'' wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority. ''Moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants.''

''Mentally retarded defendants may be less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel and are typically poor witnesses, and their demeanor may create an unwarranted impression of lack of remorse for their crimes.''

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist disagreed with the majority.

"In my view, these two sources -- the work product of legislatures and sentencing jury determinations -- ought to be the sole indicators by which courts ascertain the contemporary American conceptions of decency for purposes of the Eighth Amendment," Rehnquist wrote.

"To further buttress its appraisal of contemporary societal values, the Court marshals public opinion poll results and evidence that several professional organizations and religious groups have adopted official positions opposing the imposition of the death penalty upon mentally retarded offenders . . . In my view, none should be accorded any weight on the Eighth Amendment scale when the elected representatives of a State's populace have not deemed them persuasive enough to prompt legislative action."

The Court did not specify what is meant by "mental retardation". That is for the individual states to determine. Laws currently vary from one state to the next on how a defendant can prove to have mental retardation. Most require an IQ score of 70 or less and proof that the condition existed before age 18. The states also vary widely as to whether it is judges or juries who decide if the person has mental retardation.

The decision in Atkins v. Virginia is available at this address:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html

Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected since 1999.
Click here for daily or weekly delivery . . . OR
Try Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .

Get your news here!