Replies

The decision at a glance

06/20/2002

From Staff and Wire Reports

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.

TEXAS POLL
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.

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/texassouthwest/stories/062002dntexdecisionglance.213783c.html

Thanks for all the detailed info.

This is a bad decision. I worked for several years in a group home for retarded adults, and I agree that the retarded are not exactly like anybody else. However, there are two points here:

A real effort has been made to portray many of these people as organically retarded, when what they really suffer from is severe cultural deprivation (i.e., growing up in the home of a drug-using welfare mother). They function at the same level, with regard to impulse control, etc., but there's a difference. Low functioning people of normal intelligence know what's right and wrong, and I think that's been demonstrated again and again. In fact, people with the functional level of a 4 or 5 year old are aware of the concepts of right and wrong.

The other point is that the retarded are now expected to function in society, with no restrictions. (Once upon a time, there were residential programs for them, and their lives were fairly controlled.) If you are a functioning member of society, you get the freedom and benefits - and you also get the responsibility. One of these responsibilities is that of not murdering your fellow members of society.

Consequently, either the retarded should be brought back into situations where they are under heavy control, or they should, as are the rest of us, be responsible for their actions. You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps all of those people are making claims but there was a man executed in Texas a couple of weeks ago that had an attorney who made the claim that his client had the "mind of a child" at the time of his crime since he was not 18 at the time. He tried to get a stay of execution until this ruling was finalized.

The man was 17 1/2 when he committed the murder/carjacking/attempted murder crime (he killed the driver, shot but did not kill the passenger, and stole the car). How much "smarter" was this thug going to get in 6 months? We were told how he was elected class president, how he was a star athlete.

This is just another trick in the bag for lawyers to keep the guilty from getting their due (not a saving by grace, but a loophole).

There have been other unusual cases like a man who was fine when he committed the murders but sustained some kind of head injury later (possibly a self-inflicted gunshot from an attempted suicide). Some claimed that it wasn't right to kill him since he had no idea what was happening to him or why.

I heard that this ruling is bad also because it purposely left the determination of mental ability/retardation to each state meaning that they won't have a common definition.