Mixed reaction in Texas to Supreme Court decision
Posted on 06/20/2002 3:01:56 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Mixed reaction in Texas to Supreme Court decision
06/20/2002
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.
Neither Perry or state Attorney General John Cornyn immediately commented.
"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.
That was an argument Ellis said he expected will linger.
"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.
"No one will be automatically commuted to life," Todd said Thursday.
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.
I will say, however, that sick monsters like Penry are laughing at us, and giving us the finger. The only thing I can see is perhaps putting these "retarded" guys in with the general population with zero protection and see how they fare.
Although I don't support the death penalty, I am having trouble supporting this decision in that it creates another special class of people.
I thought the law was suppose to apply equally to all people.
06/20/2002
In a six-to-three ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled says executing the mentally retarded violates the Constitution.
The majority opinion reflects changes in public attitudes since the court declared such executions constitutional in 1989. Back then, only two states that used capital punishment outlawed it for the retarded.
Now, 18 states prohibit it.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. They made their views known earlier this month, when they complained about reprieves the court majority had given to two Texas inmates who claim they're retarded.
In today's decision, the court ruled in favor of a Virginia inmate who was convicted of a 1996 killing. His lawyers say he has an I-Q of 59 and has never lived on his own or held a job.
At least 20 Texas death row inmates have raised mental retardation as an issue in their case at trial or on appeal and their sentences may be subject to review in light of the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting execution of the mentally retarded.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THURSDAY'S SUPREME COURT DECISION:
Says that the execution of mentally retarded inmates is unconstitutionally cruel. (Mental retardation is generally defined as having an IQ of 70 or lower.)
Leaves it to the states to develop their own systems to ensure that mentally retarded people are not executed.
The court used state laws as a barometer, but also went beyond them to look at why mentally retarded killers are different than killers of normal intelligence, and whether any wider social purpose is served by executing them. Executing mentally retarded people neither appropriately punishes the criminal nor serves as a deterrent to future crimes, the majority found. 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, they said.
Three justices dissented: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In a rare dissent read from the bench, Justice Scalia said the majority hung a constitutionally suspect ruling on the slim reed of recent state lawmaking. Thursday's ruling is not grounded either in the Constitution nor in current social attitudes about the death penalty, he said. Chief Justice Rehnquist said the majority went too far in looking at factors beyond the state laws and put too much stock in opinion polls and the views of national and international observers.
WHO DID AND WHO DIDN'T
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling will affect execution laws in 20 states that allowed execution of mentally retarded inmates, although some had not performed such executions in years. The 20 states are: Texas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wyoming, Utah and Virginia.
Eighteen states allowed executions, but prohibited the execution of mentally retarded inmates. They are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Washington.
The other states prohibited executions altogether.
The federal government already prohibited execution of mentally retarded people.
THE TEXAS SYSTEM
Now, after a jury finds an offender guilty of capital murder, it hears testimony and delivers a verdict on whether there are mitigating circumstances, including mental retardation, that lessen the offender's culpability. If the jury decides there are mitigating circumstances, the death penalty is eliminated and a life sentence is automatically imposed.
Under the bill vetoed last year, capital murder defendants would have to present evidence during trial of a history of mental retardation documented prior to adulthood. If the defendant was convicted and the jury rules he was mentally retarded, he would receive a life sentence. If the jury rules against mental retardation, the defense lawyer could immediately appeal the question to the judge, who would have the unusual power of overruling the jury. If the judge agreed that the offender was not mentally retarded, the death penalty would be imposed. If the judge finds mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence, then a life sentence is mandated.
Gov. Rick Perry said the part of the bill that allowed a judge to overrule the jury was the deciding factor in his decision to veto it. Such a move would have undermined Texas criminal justice system and told Texas citizens that we don't trust them to serve on juries and pass judgment on those who commit society's most horrible crimes.
IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED
At least 20 Texas death row inmates have raised mental retardation as an issue in their case at trial or on appeal and their sentences may be subject to review in light of the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting execution of the mentally retarded. The inmates and the crimes of which they were sentenced to death:
Walter Bell Jr., 48: Robbery and murder of Ferd Chisum in Port Arthur in 1974. Mr. Bell's original death sentence for the slaying of Mr. Chisum's wife, Irene, has already been commuted to life.
Darrell Carr, 32: Slaying of 16-year-old Priscilla Rangel during a convenience store robbery in Houston in 1991.
Brian Davis, 33: Murder of Michael Alan Foster in Humble in 1991. His execution was scheduled last month but was stayed pending the decision that was handed down Thursday.
Tony Dixon, 26: Robbery and shooting death of Elizabeth Ann Peavy in Houston in 1994.
Theodore Goynes, 49: Rape/murder of Linda Marie Tucker in Houston in 1990.
Doil Lane, 41: Rape/murder of 8-year-old Bertha Martinez in San Marcos in 1980.
Willie Moddon, 54: Murder of gas station clerk Deborah Davenport during a robbery in Lufkin in 1984. His execution was stayed earlier this month pending the decision that came down Thursday.
Bobby Moore, 42: Slaying of James McCarble during a 1980 grocery store robbery in Houston.
Curtis Moore, 34: Abduction and shooting deaths of Roderick Moore, Latasha Boone and Henry Truevillen in Fort Worth in 1995. His execution was stayed last month pending the decision that came down Thursday.
John Paul Penry, 46: Rape and stabbing death of Pamela Moseley Carpenter in Livingston in 1979. The punishment phase of Mr. Penry's conviction is being retried for the third time in Montgomery County.
Anthony Pierce, 42: Murder of Fred Johnson during the robbery of a fast-food restaurant in Houston in 1977.
Michael Richard, 42: Rape/slaying of Marguerite Lucille Dixon in Hockley in 1986.
Steve Rodriguez, 36: Stabbing death of Agnes Herden during the burglary of her home in San Antonio in 1990.
Demetrius Simms, 31: Abduction and murder of 3-year-old Monique Miller in Houston in 1991.
Paul Wayne Slater, 28: Shooting deaths of Rodderick Martin and Glenn Andrews in Houston in 1995.
Exzavier Lamont Stevenson, 34: Shooting deaths of Khalid Masroor and Syed Mehdi at a Houston convenience store in 2000.
Alberto Valdez, 46: Slaying of Corpus Christi police officer Joseph Bock in 1987.
Jeffery Demond Williams, 26: Shooting death of Houston police officer Troy Blando in 1999.
Bobby Wayne Woods, 36: Sexual assault and murder of 11 year old Sarah Patterson in Granbury in 1997
Kevin Lee Zimmerman, 41: Stabbing death of Leslie Gilbert Hooks, Jr. in Beaumont in 1987.
|
|
|||
| Should the state execute inmates considered mentally retarded? | |||
| Spring 2002 | Winter 2001 | Fall 1988 | |
| Yes | 20% | 17% | 11% |
| No | 65% | 66% | 73% |
| Source: The Scripps Howard Data Center surveyed 1,000 Texans by telephone May 20-June 9. Undecided responses are not included. Margin of error: plus or minus 3 percentage points | |||
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Low intelligence does not preclude moral accountability.
I'm pretty sure Ellis is a huge advocate for executing children. He would just rather defend some murdering rapist than innocent human life.
Geeze, a dog that can't be trained not to kill is put to death. Are we demanding more of pets than people?
Add that to the fact that it would be better right now if McVeigh were alive, to ask him about John Doe #2 or possible Arab terrorist involvement in his acts. And that abortion is not considered murder.
I'm terribly conflicted about all of this. Maybe it's time to say the death penalty just isn't viable.
This will only encourage claims of special consideration for every killer on death row. "He must have been temporaily retarded because he butchered those fast food workers in such a vicious way." "They were momentarily retarded as a result of years of the residual effects of slavery." Mumia, the cop killer, will now claim that situational diminished mental capacity equaling retardation and caused by the pressures of a racist white society killed the cop, not him.
The proof of criminal intent is much more subjective. It involves determining if the defendant is capable of forming INTENT or RECKLESSNESS. If we concede that the crime was voluntary, then we rule out recklessness, which is passive. It only remains to prove intent.
The claim is advanced that retarded persons are incapable of forming criminal intent, since they are functionally unaware of the consequences of their actions, or that their actions may cause harm.
That then is the argument that protects retarded persons from the death penalty.
I believe that the victim of a retarded person is just as dead as the victim of a thoroughly competent murderer. I also believe that true justice demands retribution from the criminal. Therefore, I would disregard intent, and would apply the same penalties to the retarded person I would apply to the competent. I would sentence the murderer to death, and would execute him with no remorse.
The world does not need to coddle murderers, regardless of their mental innocence. I would apply the same strictures to children.
By the way, most states require that extreme aggravating circumstances be proven before the death penalty can be applied. That alone would protect a retarded person, unless the crime was committed repeatedly or wantonly, which would belie a defense of reduced capacity.
I wonder if anyone on TV news will point this out?
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.