Posted on 06/20/2002 9:02:53 AM PDT by Tony Niar Brain
WASHINGTON, June 20 A divided Supreme Court reversed itself Thursday and ruled that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel a decision that reflects changes in public attitudes on the issue since the court declared such executions constitutional in 1989.
THE 6-3 RULING is confined to mentally retarded killers, and does not address the constitutionality of capital punishment in general.
When the court first declared such executions constitutional in 1989. Then, only two states that used capital punishment outlawed the practice for the retarded. Now, 18 states prohibit it.
It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of the change, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. The three, the courts most conservative members, telegraphed their views earlier this month, when they complained bitterly about reprieves the court majority had granted to two Texas inmates who claim they are retarded.
Scalia took the unusual move of announcing his dissent from the bench, NBCs Pete Williams reported.
Scalia said he thinks this ruling will turn death penalty cases into a game, with convicts trying to fake being mentally retarded, Williams reported.
The court ruled in favor of a Virginia inmate, Daryl Renard Atkins, who was convicted of shooting an Air Force enlisted man for beer money in 1996. Atkins lawyers say he has an IQ of 59 and has never lived on his own or held a job.
Census 2000: The changing face of America
The most immediate effect of the ruling will be in the 20 states that allowed execution of the retarded up to now. Presumably, dozens or perhaps hundreds of inmates in those states will now argue that they are retarded, and that their sentences should be converted to life in prison.
In the future, the ruling will mean that 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 dissenting justices said the majority went too far in looking at factors beyond the state laws.
The majority puts too much stock in opinion polls and the views of national and international observers, Rehnquist wrote.
Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent, Rehnquist said. Rehnquist omitted the customary word respectfully before dissent.
8TH AMENDMENTS PROTECTION KEY
The case turned on the 8th Amendments protection against cruel and unusual punishments, and how to define those terms today.
Times change, and with them public sentiment about what is appropriate punishment for various crimes, the court has observed in the past. For example, at various times in the countrys history it was considered acceptable to flog people in public, or to execute those convicted of rape.
Using elected legislatures as a barometer, the court majority concluded that the public no longer accepts the notion that execution is appropriate for a killer who may lack the intelligence to fully understand his crime.
The practice ... has become unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it, Stevens wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day OConnor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
This consensus unquestionably reflects widespread judgment about the relative culpability of mentally retarded offenders, and the relationship between mental retardation and the penological purposes served by the death penalty, Stevens wrote.
Many mentally retarded defendants know right from wrong, but they are more likely to act on impulse or to be swayed by others in a group, Stevens wrote.
Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability."
Counting the 12 states that do not allow capital punishment at all, 30 states prohibit execution of the retarded.
The number of states that banned the practice increased ninefold between the courts last ruling on the issue and the time it heard arguments in Atkins case. The court was forced to toss out a North Carolina case it originally selected to reconsider the retardation question last year, because that state banned the practice before the court could hear the case.
Virginia authorities argued that Atkins planned his crime and understood afterward what he had done. The state claimed he was no less culpable for the crime than a person of normal intelligence.
Atkins had 20 previous felonies on his record at the time of the killing, the state argued. Atkins gave a detailed confession to police when he was arrested, describing how he and an accomplice kidnapped the victim, forced him to withdraw cash from a bank teller machine and then drove him to a deserted field and shot him eight times.
OConnor wrote the 5-4 decision in 1989 upholding execution of the retarded.
There was insufficient evidence of a national consensus against the executions to determine that they were unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, she wrote then.
President Bush has said he opposes executing the mentally retarded. Bushs successor as governor of Texas vetoed a ban on the practice.
The case is Atkins v. Virginia, 01-8452.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
The SC majority puts more value on the life of a retarded murderer than they do on an unborn child.
I noticed that concensus did not get in the way of the SC declaring Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion unconstitutional.
Who knew?
Who knew?
He wasn't retarded when he committed the crime. He tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head when he was cornered by police. He ended up giving himself a lobotomy instead.
Exactly!
You're right.
I find it amazing that democrats can appoint Supreme Court justices who will further their agenda 100% of the time, while republicans are lost in the woods on the issue.
Of course, this may just be protection from republican lawmakers too, since none of them apparently have an IQ over 70 either.
I'm from Illinois, where we've had a moratorium on the death penalty for several years. I'm also a paralegal who worked for a defense attorney for over a decade and yes, we handled a few murder cases. I can certainly understand the arguments offered by both sides.
My position is that in some cases, we need the death penalty because certain people simply don't deserve to live and because the surviving relatives of the victims deserve retribution. I think that every death sentence should mean that the state forfeits jurisdiction of the case directly to the United States Supreme Court.
Let the Supreme Court divide into three panels of three justices each, just like every other appellate court in the nation, in order to hear the increased case load. And let this be the one and only appeal. We'd see brutal murderers executed within 18 months of a guilty verdict, rather than 18 years. Justice delayed is justice denied.
That is precisely what defines these people as "conservatives." The U.S. Constitution includes a clearly-defined process for passing amendments. What infuriates conservatives is that liberals have never even bothered to amend the Constitution -- they simply rely on justices to render decisions that have no basis in Constitutional law.
I'm no fan of the death penalty, either. Not for any of the reasons that you describe, but because a nation that can produce an O.J. jury, a Clinton presidency, or a Jerry Springer show doesn't have the moral authority to put people in jail, let alone execute them.
What is unusual about that? If you think the Constitution has a flaw, the proper way to resolve it is through amendment, not by re-interpretation based opinion polls or popular sentiment. That is not law --- it is mob rule in robes.
I personally have a problem with the death penalty, not on constitutional grounds but on religious/moral/ethical grounds. But I refuse to insult anyones IQ by making a case that it is unconstitutional on its face. It clearly is not.
This ruling by the SC is bizarre at best. The perp admits forming prior intent and admits understanding that it is wrong. I don't give a damn if his IQ (what the hell is that anyway, and who decides?) is 70 or 170, he meets the criteria for pre-meditated murder in the act of committing a felony. If I get caught I can simply plead stupidity while someone doing the exact same thing who happened to finish high school still gets fried? Are we equal under the law or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.