Posted on 06/20/2002 9:48:05 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON, June 20 — The Constitution bars the execution of mentally retarded offenders, the Supreme Court declared today in a landmark death penalty ruling based on the majority's view that a "national consensus" now rejected such executions as excessive and inappropriate.
Of the 38 states that have a death penalty, 18 now prohibit executing the retarded, up from 2 when the court last considered the question in 1989. This "dramatic shift in the state legislative landscape," especially when anticrime legislation is extremely popular, "provides powerful evidence that today our society views mentally retarded offenders as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the 6-to-3 majority. [Excerpts, Page A14.]
The decision, in the case of a Virginia man with an I.Q. of 59 who was convicted of committing a murder and robbery at the age of 18, could ultimately move 200 or more people off death row. Mental health experts believe that as many as 10 percent of those convicted of capital murder are mentally retarded, although states often dispute the claim in individual cases.
In fact, Virginia is disputing the evidence that the defendant in this case, Daryl R. Atkins, is retarded. The Supreme Court said today that it would be up to the states to develop "appropriate ways" to apply the new constitutional prohibition. The generally accepted definition of mental retardation is an I.Q. of approximately 70 or less accompanied by limitations on abilities like communication or caring for oneself.
The dissenters today, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, disputed that there was a real or lasting consensus against executing the retarded. In a dissenting opinion that he read from the bench, Justice Scalia said that 18 states out of 38 was only 47 percent, not even half.
In the absence of an authentic consensus, the majority had simply enshrined its own views as constitutional law, he said, adding, "The arrogance of this assumption of power takes one's breath away."
Further, he said, "there is something to be said for popular abolition of the death penalty; there is nothing to be said for its incremental abolition by this court."
Chief Justice Rehnquist said the majority had improperly gone beyond looking at state legislative action to consider polling data and international opinion as well. "If it is evidence of a national consensus for which we are looking, then the viewpoints of other countries simply are not relevant," he said.
The 15 countries of the European Union filed a brief on behalf of Mr. Atkins, as did a group of senior American diplomats who told the court that the practice of executing retarded offenders was out of step with much of the world and was a source of friction between the United States and other countries.
Amnesty International said that since 1995, only three countries were reported to have executed mentally retarded people: Kyrgyzstan, Japan and the United States, which the organization said had executed 35 mentally retarded defendants since the court allowed states to reinstate the death penalty in 1976. The court's decision today "will provide the U.S. criminal justice system with a critical tool to uphold human rights standards," the organization said.
The decision overturns a ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court.
While the justices disputed the outcome, there was no dispute on the basic analytic approach, unique to the Eighth Amendment, that depends on a sense of community norms to decide whether a practice violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. All agreed with the statement of Chief Justice Earl Warren in a 1958 case, Trop v. Dulles, that "the amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Rather, the debate was over whether the evidence supported the evolution that the majority discerned.
The court's previous examination of the retardation question came in 1989 in a Texas case, Penry v. Lynaugh, in which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's controlling opinion said that there was no current consensus against executing the retarded but kept the court's door open to future developments.
The developments came quickly. From the original two states, Georgia and Maryland, the list of states exempting retarded people from capital punishment grew to include New Mexico, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri and New York, which excluded the retarded when it reinstated its death penalty in 1995. The federal death penalty, reinstated in 1988, exempted the retarded.
When the court agreed last year to revisit the issue, it did so in a case from North Carolina, but North Carolina abolished the death penalty for the retarded last summer, before that case, McCarver v. North Carolina, No. 00-8727, could be argued. The justices then substituted the case they decided today, Atkins v. Virginia, No. 00-8452. It appeared earlier this year that the Atkins case might become moot as well. In February, the Virginia State Senate voted unanimously to abolish capital punishment for the retarded, but the House decided to delay action until after the Supreme Court decision.
Surveying this rapidly changing landscape, Justice Stevens noted that the numbers alone did not tell the full story.
"It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change," especially in a strong anticrime climate, he said.
Even most states that nominally allow executing the retarded were not actually carrying out such executions, Justice Stevens said, concluding, "The practice, therefore, has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it."
The opinion, joined by Justices O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, did not end there. Justice Stevens went on to consider whether there was any reason the court should disregard or disagree with the legislative judgments. He concluded that, to the contrary, the state judgments were supported by a review of various factors making the death penalty particularly inappropriate for retarded defendants.
"Some characteristics of mental retardation undermine the strength of the procedural protections that our capital jurisprudence steadfastly guards," Justice Stevens said, adding that as a result, "mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution."
Among the factors he cited were their "diminished capacities to understand and process information" and to reason logically and control impulses. These characteristics do not mean that retarded defendants who are competent to stand trial should not face criminal punishment, Justice Stevens said, "but they do diminish their personal culpability" and indicate that the usual justifications for capital punishment, retribution and deterrence, are less applicable than to defendants with normal intelligence.
This part of the opinion might have broader significance for the court's death penalty jurisprudence, said one death penalty expert, Professor Michael Mello of Vermont Law School.
"It shows that a majority of the court is willing to take a fresh look at the real capital punishment, how the system really works," said Professor Mello, a former defense lawyer who opposes the death penalty.
He predicted that the court might be open to revisiting precedents that make it all but impossible for appellate courts to consider assertions of actual innocence if the defendant has not followed exacting procedures.
None of the current members of the court hold a position in flat opposition to the death penalty.
Neither the majority nor the dissenters discussed the retroactive implications of the decision. Under the court's constitutional jurisprudence, the decision applies retroactively as a general matter, but states could raise objections to granting relief to defendants who had not argued the retardation issue in earlier appeals. If the lower federal courts disagree on how such cases should be handled, the question could conceivably come back to the Supreme Court, where a majority appears ready to grant full retroactivity.
So glad we have a court with a majority of principled justices appointed by Republican presidents. (End sarcasm.)
With this statement, Stevens has removed the supposed reason for unelected Justices -- to have a group of Judges insulated from politics and popular movements.
Very well, let's elect the Supreme Court. And let's put on retroactive term limits to get rid of the Senile Stevens. That idiot has done so much damage to this country.
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 Court’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. … [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..."
* 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..."
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.