Eleanor Finch
The execution of mentally retarded criminals has been a highly contested issue in the United States, with the Supreme Court ruling in Penry v. Lynaugh that it does not violate the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Court also stated that juries must consider mitigating evidence of mental retardation when deciding on the death penalty. The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, has been interpreted by the Court to include evolving standards of decency, and many states have since banned the execution of the mentally retarded, indicating a shift in societal attitudes. The Supreme Court revisited the issue in Atkins v. Virginia, where it considered the execution of a mentally retarded individual who had been on death row since 1998. The Court's decision in this case could have a significant impact on death row inmates across the nation.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Ruling | The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing a mentally retarded person does not automatically violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. |
| Year | The ruling was made in 2002. |
| Case | Atkins v. Virginia |
| States banning execution of mentally retarded | Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. |
| States that have banned the death penalty | Michigan was the first state to abolish the death penalty in 1846. |
| National consensus | The growing number of states banning executions of the mentally retarded amounts to a national consensus against the practice, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. |
| IQ level | Most states apply a test where an individual's IQ must be 70 or below for them to be considered mentally retarded. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The US Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that executing mentally retarded criminals is unconstitutional
- The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments
- The definition of mental retardation is disputed
- The Supreme Court first considered the execution of the mentally retarded in 1989
- A growing number of states ban executions of the mentally retarded
The US Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that executing mentally retarded criminals is unconstitutional
In 2002, the US Supreme Court ruled that executing mentally retarded criminals is unconstitutional. This ruling came about as a result of the case Atkins v. Virginia, in which the Court considered whether executions of people with mental retardation violated the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."
The Court's decision was based on the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits punishments that are "cruel and unusual." The Court interpreted this to include punishments that are excessive and not "graduated and proportioned to the offense." The Court also considered the evolving standards of decency and concluded that the execution of mentally retarded criminals was inconsistent with modern societal values.
At the time of the Atkins v. Virginia case, a growing number of states had already banned the execution of mentally retarded individuals, indicating a national consensus against the practice. The Court's ruling in 2002 affirmed that such executions are unconstitutional and violate the Eighth Amendment.
It is important to note that the determination of mental retardation or intellectual disability can be complex and may involve multiple factors, including IQ, limitations in adaptive functioning, and age of onset. While the Supreme Court's ruling establishes a constitutional protection against executing mentally retarded criminals, the application and enforcement of this ruling may vary across states and cases.
CPA Firm Policies: Ethical or Discreditable?
You may want to see also
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. The roots of the Eighth Amendment can be traced back to England's legal traditions, which sought to curb monarchical power and protect liberty. The English Bill of Rights of 1689, which followed the Glorious Revolution, was pivotal in shaping these principles. It prohibited cruel and unusual punishments and declared that excessive bail should not be required.
The Eighth Amendment provides additional protections for those facing criminal charges, most notably the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This protection against cruel and unusual punishment was included in the United States Constitution in 1791. The phrase "cruel and unusual punishments" had been used in England's Bill of Rights of 1689, and it was also included in the Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason in 1776.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth Amendment to reflect changing societal norms and values, ensuring that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment remains relevant and meaningful in contemporary times. For example, in Trop v. Dulles, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited revoking citizenship as a punishment for wartime desertion. The Court emphasised that citizenship is a fundamental right and that its revocation should not be used as a punitive measure. The Court also acknowledged that societal attitudes and understandings of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment may change over time.
The Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has been applied to cases involving the execution of mentally retarded criminals. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court considered whether executions of people with mental retardation violate the Constitution's ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court concluded that such executions are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, as they are excessive and not proportionate to the offense. The Court also noted that the growing number of states banning executions of the mentally retarded indicates a national consensus against the practice.
In conclusion, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is a vital protection for individuals facing criminal charges. The Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to reflect evolving societal standards of decency and proportionality in punishment. This has led to landmark decisions such as Trop v. Dulles and Atkins v. Virginia, which have expanded the rights of individuals and set important precedents for future cases involving cruel and unusual punishments.
Charles' Reign: Key Constitutional Questions Answered
You may want to see also
The definition of mental retardation is disputed
The Social Security Administration (SSA) also replaced the term "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability" in its Listing of Impairments, reflecting the widespread adoption of the latter term. This change went into effect on September 3, 2013. Despite this shift, the term "mental retardation" is still used in certain contexts, such as governmental aid programs or health insurance paperwork, where it is specifically covered.
The concept of mental retardation, recognising that some individuals have cognitive deficits that interfere with functioning, has a long history. Early definitions of the condition acknowledged differences in cognition associated with impaired functioning. Over time, the understanding and definition of mental retardation have evolved. For instance, in 1845, Esquirol divided mental retardation into two categories based on performance on speech and language tasks. In contrast, Seguin (1866) identified a severe defect in moral development as the primary characteristic.
The American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR), previously known as the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feeble-minded Persons and the American Association on Mental Deficiency, issued its first formal definition of mental retardation in 1910. They defined it as individuals being feeble-minded, with development arrested at an early age or evidenced by an inability to manage daily life demands or keep up with peers. Mental retardation was further divided into three levels: idiots, imbeciles, and morons, based on developmental levels.
While the term "intellectual disability" is gaining popularity, some parents of adult children with profound intellectual and developmental disabilities prefer the term "mental retardation" as they believe it best describes their children's conditions. They argue that "intellectual disability" is imprecise and vague and may lead to a reduction in public awareness and support for individuals with these conditions. However, others have expressed concerns that the prominent use of the term "disability" may prompt assumptions about an individual's disabled status under program rules.
The dispute over the definition of mental retardation is not just about terminology but also about the underlying understanding of the condition. While some, like Edgar Doll, proposed that mental retardation was a genetic condition leading to social incompetence and arrested development, others, like Kuhlman, suggested it resulted from a subnormal rate of development due to social functioning deficits. This ongoing debate highlights the complexity and evolving nature of defining mental retardation.
Shaw v. Reno: The Equal Protection Clause
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Supreme Court first considered the execution of the mentally retarded in 1989
In 2002, the Supreme Court revisited the issue in Atkins v. Virginia, a case in which a defendant with an IQ of 59 was sentenced to death despite arguments that he was mildly mentally retarded. The Court ruled that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Court's decision was based on the idea of evolving standards of decency and the recognition that executing intellectually disabled people does not serve the recognized penological goals of retribution and deterrence.
Since the Atkins decision, there has been ongoing debate and litigation regarding the constitutionality of executing people with mental retardation. In 2005, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of death sentences handed down to adults with IQs of less than 70, and the growing number of states banning such executions. By 2012, the Supreme Court narrowed its decision in Hall v. Florida, limiting the discretion of states to designate individuals convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.
The constitutionality of executing the mentally retarded remains a complex and evolving issue, with ongoing debates around the definition of mental retardation, the role of mental health professionals in making such assessments, and the potential stigmatization and culpability of mentally disabled persons.
The US Constitution and Bible: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
A growing number of states ban executions of the mentally retarded
The execution of the mentally retarded has long been a contentious issue in the United States, with the Supreme Court considering it as far back as 1989 in the case of Johnny Paul Penry. At that time, the Court ruled that the execution of persons with mental retardation was not unconstitutional, as there was no national consensus against such executions. However, in the years since, a growing number of states have legislatively banned the practice, with 18 states and the federal government having exempted the mentally retarded from the death penalty as of 2005. This shift in legislation indicates a changing standard of decency and a growing recognition that executing the mentally retarded is incompatible with the standards of a civilized society.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been at the forefront of advocating for a re-evaluation of the constitutionality of executing the mentally retarded. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court considered the issue once again in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, where the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief. The case involved 24-year-old Daryl Atkins, who had been on Virginia's death row since 1998 for the abduction and killing of Eric Nesbitt. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld Atkins' sentence based on the Court's previous Penry decision, which acknowledged the varying abilities of the retarded but concluded that they do not necessarily lack the capacity to plan a murder.
The ACLU has argued that the growing number of states banning executions of the mentally retarded amounts to a national consensus against the practice. Diann Rust-Tierney, Director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, has stated that "execution of the mentally retarded is incompatible with the standards of a civilized society regardless of the procedures used." The ACLU has also highlighted the need to examine the application of the death penalty not just for the mentally retarded but for all prisoners, including addressing socioeconomic disparities within the system.
As of 2005, the states that generally ban executions of the mentally retarded include Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. However, it is important to note that as of 2020, 25 U.S. states still permit the execution of offenders with mental retardation. Human Rights Watch has urged these states to pass laws banning the practice, arguing that executing adults with the minds of children is barbaric and highlighting the vulnerability of mentally retarded offenders to the arbitrariness and high risk of error in U.S. capital trials.
Framers' Intent: A Contentious Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Penry v. Lynaugh that executing a mentally retarded person does not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Court also ruled that juries must consider mitigating evidence of mental retardation when deciding on the death penalty.
Most states use a three-pronged test. Firstly, the individual's IQ must be 70 or below. Secondly, the individual must show significant limitations in adaptive functioning, such as communication and self-care. Lastly, both of these conditions must have manifested before the age of 18.
As of 2005, 18 states and the federal government have banned the death penalty for the mentally retarded. The number of states banning the practice has been increasing, and the Supreme Court has continued to review cases involving the issue.
