Mixed reaction in Texas to Supreme Court decision - Regarding ban on executing mentally retarded

AUSTIN - Supporters of a ban on executing the mentally retarded in Texas were jubilant Thursday after a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such executions are unconstitutionally cruel.

Opponents, meanwhile, initially reacted with silence, saying they needed more time to review the high court decision.

"I'm elated," said state Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat who last year filed a bill to ban the execution of the mentally retarded in Texas that was vetoed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Ellis told The Associated Press that he planned to file the exact same piece of legislation in January and believed it would again pass both chambers in light of Thursday's high court ruling.

"Just as we don't execute children in this country or in this state, we ought not execute someone who has the mind of a child," Ellis said.

"This is great news. It's a milestone in narrowing the use of capital punishment in this country," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. "It will have a great impact on how we administer the death penalty in Texas."

Texas is one of 20 states that allowed the execution of the retarded before the high court ruling.

The ruling means that in the future, people arrested for a killing will not face a potential death sentence if they can show they are retarded, generally defined as having an IQ of 70 or lower.

The court left it to states to develop their own systems to ensure that mentally retarded people are not executed.

Perry vetoed a bill last year that would have allowed a jury to determine during a trial's punishment phase whether a defendant was mentally retarded. If so, the sentence would have been life in prison.

Under that bill, if the jury found a person was not mentally retarded, a defense attorney could petition the judge to consider the issue. Two experts would be assigned to make a determination. If the evidence showed the person to be mentally retarded, the judge would be required to issue a life sentence.

Perry said the bill took too much power away from the jury and gave it to the judge.

After his veto last June, Perry said he believed Texas statute would stand even if the Supreme Court banned the execution of the mentally retarded.

"We do not allow for the execution of the mentally retarded today," Perry said at the time.

"There are some who will say we don't executive the mentally retarded now. Well, my question would be, 'why would you be opposed to a ban on it then?'," Ellis said. "We need to get this issue behind us and not try to deny reality."

Current Texas law says a jury must decide if a defendant is competent to stand trial, including whether the defendant can aid in his own defense, and whether a defendant was insane, unable to distinguish right from wrong, when the crime was committed.

Jurors also can consider retardation as a mitigating circumstance during sentencing.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice did not immediately know many inmates on death row would be affected and was waiting further direction from the courts, said spokesman Larry Todd.

Harrington estimated 68 inmates, or 15 percent of the 455 people on death row, could be considered mentally retarded under the Supreme Court ruling.

In April, a third Texas jury determined convicted killer John Paul Penry was mentally competent to stand trial despite an IQ in the 50s.

Penry, who tests show has the intellectual ability of a 6- or 7-year-old, has spent nearly half his life locked up for killing Pamela Moseley Carpenter.

The U.S. Supreme Court had blocked three recent scheduled Texas executions of convicts who claimed to be mentally retarded.

One of the nation's busiest death penalty states, Texas has executed 16 people this year.

Before the Supreme Court Ruling, the Death Penalty Information Center claimed Texas has executed six mentally retarded inmates since 1982, a number disputed by death penalty proponents.

Messages left Thursday with the Houston-based victims' rights group Justice for All were not immediately returned.

Here are the contents of two e-mails I received today regarding the Daryl Atkins case and the Catholic bishops' involvement in the Supreme Court decision.

dajjal

---------------------------------

Seems the bishops are still clear voices of moral authority who are guiding a nation to righteousness ...

On August 16, 1996, Daryl Renard Atkins and his friend, William Jones, were smoking pot and drinking beer at Atkins' house when they ran out of beer. They went to a convenience store to buy some more beer, only to discover that they didn't have enough money. Atkins volunteered to panhandle in the store's parking lot to get the extra money. Eric Nesbitt happened to walk into this situation. Atkins asked Nesbitt for some money to buy more beer. Nesbitt declined Atkins' request.

Too bad ... Atkins REALLY needed beer -- REALLY NEEDED BEER -- and so the only solution was to kill Nesbitt and take his money ... Less than ideal for Nesbitt, but Atkins got his beer and that's what is important ...

When the police came by to arrest him, Atkins tried to frame Jones. The mean-spirited Virginia prosecutors used this point in painting Atkins as more than just a threat to the public ... that, in their words, he was not only "dangerous," but "vile" ... ("Vile" ... What a mean thing to say !!!!) ...

Happily some people saw that Atkins was only misguided ... That he was a lost sheep needing love ... The American Catholic Bishops offered to help !

Suddenly it was discovered that Atkins wasn't just a guy who valued beer over other people's lives ... No, Atkins was "a mentally retarded offender" ... I thought the PC term was "a specially challenged offender," but lets move on ...

In his opinion on why Atkins cannot be executed for killing Nesbitt to get beer money, Supreme Court Justice Stevens states that "mentally retarded persons ... because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses ... do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct."

This is the "national consensus" ... As proof of a such a consensus, Stevens cited the Amici Curiae filed by the United States Catholic Conference (NCCBUSCC) ... Just when things were darkest, we see that it IS, as promised, "The Springtime in the Church" !!! The bishops are listened to as an unfailing voice of moral authority !!!

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZO.html

The bishops helped shape a NATIONAL CONSENSUS !!! --- Three Cheers For The Bishops !!!!

But not everyone is cheering NCCBUSCC ! ???

That mean old ogre, Justice Scalia mocks Justice Stevens for citing the NCCBUSCC : http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZD1.html

"But the Prize for the Courtâ€™s Most Feeble Effort to fabricate 'national consensus' must go to its appeal ... to the views of assorted professional and religious organizations, members of the so-called 'world community,' and respondents to opinion polls.... I agree with the Chief Justice ... that the views of professional and religious organizations and the results of opinion polls are irrelevant ... and in some cases positively counter-indicative. The Court cites, for example, the views of the United States Catholic Conference, whose members are the active Catholic Bishops of the United States.... The attitudes of that body regarding crime and punishment are so far from being representative, even of the views of Catholics, that they are currently the object of intense national (and entirely ecumenical) criticism."

The news reports show that only 111 of the nation's 178 Catholic dioceses were engaged in active cover-ups of priests raping ... sorry ... "outreaching to" ... 10 year olds. Why would Scalia think that that makes their views on crime and punishment suspect ??? If you picked 178 names out of the phone book, probably 111 also have at some time in their lives covered up for a serial muderer or serial rapist or a bank robber or a terrorist or something ...

OK, maybe not 111 out of 178 people randomly picked from the phone book, but enough to form a "national consensus" with the NCCBUSCC at the front, leading the way !!!! Are you telling me that 111 out of 178 people randomly picked from the phone book haven't given $450,000 of hush money to their gay lovers ... ???

Scalia also mocks Stevens use of the Amici Curiae filed by the European Union.

"Equally irrelevant are the practices of the 'world community,' whose notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people. 'We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding. â€¦ [W]here there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.' Thompson, 487 U.S., at 868â€"869, n. 4"

Why the mocking ??? When the so-called "Pedophile Priest" scandal broke the NCCBUSCC tried to remind everyone that in some countries people got married at 9 or 10 years of age and so, in covering up for the pedophile priests, the American Catholic Bishops were just looking at things from a "global" viewpoint -- not just a NARROW American viewpoint ... Aren't we supposed to "Think Globally" ???"

If it works for pedophilia, why can't it work killing people for beer money ...

I'm sure people get killed for beer money all over the world ... Why can't we just follow the bishops and use that as our "World Consensus" in interpreting U.S. law ??? Like the NCCBUSCC says, if they do it in Sierra Leone, we ought to do it here !!!

A final point : I remember from my days of drinking that being drunk produced "disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of ... impulses" ... So does that mean that everything I do while drunk is legal ???

After all, drunks, have "disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses" and so "do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct."

Come on, Cardinal Law, help me out with this ...

-------------------------------------------

I was doing some reading about this and learned that

* Eric Nesbitt was a 21 year old airman stationed at Langley Air Force Base (So the bishops score a double victory : Saving Atkins and removing a cog from the evil war machine)

* Atkins shot Nesbitt eight times (Guess when you are mentally retarded, you don't know that one or two bullets are enough)

* When Nesbitt refused to give him money, a frustrated Atkins smashed a bottle over Nesbitt's head. Going through Nesbitt's wallet, Atkins was angered that there was only $60. Atkins and his drinking buddy, William Jones, hustled Nesbitt back into his car and took his keys. Abducting Nesbitt, they lead him at gun point to an ATM machine and forced him to withdraw an additional $200 in beer money.

* This wasn't Atkins' first run in with the law. Though only 18 years old, Atkins Atkins had at 18 prior felony convictions for such crimes as attempted robbery, robbery, carjacking, abduction, breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny, grand larceny, maiming, and use of a firearm. Why wasn't Atkins rotting in jail ??? He was a minor and promised to reform.

* Once, for no reason the courts could determine, Atkins shot a woman through the stomach. Kids do the DARNDEST things ... Just ask Art Linkletter !!!!

* Atkins claimed the gun that was used on Nesbitt wasn't his ... A friend named "Mark," whose last name he didn't know and whose address he didn't know, asked him to hold it for the night ... "Mark," said he was going to pick the gun up in the morning, but Atkins now realized that "Mark" was trying to frame him for Nesbitt's murder.

* OPPS !!! --- The camera foottage from the ATM shows Atkins and Jones holding the gun to Nesbitt's head as Nesbitt withdraws the money. "Mark" nowhere to be seen ...

* Jones admits they killed Nesbitt because they worried that Nesbitt would be able to identify them. Jones wanted to just tie up Nesbitt and leave him in a field to die of starvation and exposure. Atkins thought Jones's plan was stupid (Retarded???), but agreed.

* Atkins knew the prefect place -- his grandfather's house out in the woods! When questioned by the police, Atkins could not explain how "Mark" knew about Atkins' grandfather's farmhouse. That "Mark" is a criminal mastermind !!!

* According to Jones, Nesbitt begged that they could take whatever he had as long as they don't kill him. Jones thought that all three had come to an understanding that Nesbitt would be tied up and left in a field, but that if he managed to survive, he would not testify against Atkins or Jones. The pair took "no more than two steps" away from Nesbitt when Atkins turned around and repeatedly shot him in the stomach (AGAIN WITH THE STOMACH !!!) ... Jones, trying to stop him, grabs Atkins, causing him to accidently shoot himself in the leg.

* Atkins and Jones get back into Nesbitt's car and Jones drives the cursing, bleeding Atkins to the hospital and, after splitting the money, dumps him there.

* Having to explain his gunshoot at the hospital emergency room, Atkins claimed it was a freak accident, but there were also signs of some kind of fight or struggle. Since it was a gunshot, as routine proceedure, the hospital notified the police, creating a chain of evidence that eventually convicted Atkins.

* The Virginia court was aware that Atkins was a little dim, but their standard was "can he tell right from wrong." A battery of psychologists concluded that he could.

* Jones got one-life sentence + 3 years for his role in Nesbitt's murder. Jones was orginally charged with three life sentences and possible execution, but the DA reduced it to one life sentence and removed the possibility of execution in exchange for Jones' testimony. The extra 3 is for illegal possession of a firearm.

* I found some court documents, and their language goes beyond what I found in the press clippings :

http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1000395.txt

Atkins conduct was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or aggravated battery to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder..."