Retarded Killers May Not Be Executed, U.S. Supreme Court Rules

Bloomberg.com ^ | 6/20/02 | Greg Stohr

[GeneD]

Washington, June 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Constitution bars executions of mentally retarded killers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, reversing a decision it made 13 years ago and ending a practice permitted in 20 states.

The 6-3 decision, invoking the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, said ``evolving standards of decency'' preclude sentencing the retarded to death. The ruling came in the case of a Virginia man convicted of a 1996 murder.

[RoughDobermann]

Having worked with the Special Olympics program, I can tell you that a great number of retarded (yes that's what they are) kids know the difference between right and wrong. IQ is not a measure of conscience.

Bingo!

[mwl1]

They stupidly got this one wrong, and it sends an ominous signal on the school voucher case.

[Petronski]

The Supremes just eliminated the death penalty in the US.

Good, were it true.

[Semper Paratus]

Decision came too late for the one Clinton let fry.

[SlickWillard]

The Constitution bars executions of mentally retarded killers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, reversing a decision it made 13 years ago and ending a practice permitted in 20 states. The 6-3 decision, invoking the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, said ``evolving standards of decency'' preclude sentencing the retarded to death.

This is a profoundly anti-constitutional decision:

No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection of the law is meaningless without equal punishment by the law. Just as Roe created a class of persons who can be murdered with impunity, now Atkins creates yet another class of persons [in addition to the abortionists of Roe] who can murder with impunity.

[Age of Reason]

I hope they defined "retarded."

I sure hope they don't consider someone retarded merely because he fails one of those culturally biased IQ tests.

[Gaston]

I hope they defined "retarded."

Yes they did. An IQ of less than 70.

[RoughDobermann]

The Supremes just eliminated the death penalty in the US.

Good, were it true.

Have you ever had a family member murdered? Just curious.

[3AngelaD]

Why do I suspect that every single murderer from now on is going to claim to be retarded? Also, isn't this insulting to the differently abled, in that it indicates that they are unable to be responsible for any of their actions. Only someone who is unable to cross the street unassisted should be able to claim this.

[Age of Reason]

Equal protection of the law is meaningless without equal punishment by the law.

Yes.

See my post number 19 above.

[biblewonk]

I was just going to ask "how retarded?".

[robertpaulsen]

Well if we apply the "standards of decency" to the retarded, then why not to the homeless, orphans, quadriplegics, etc.? I mean how can we, as society, put these poor people to death if they murder someone?

If "retarded" people do not know right from wrong, we're all in trouble.

[maxwell]

Great, now all some murderer has to do is claim to be retarded (in P.C.: Mentaly Challenged) and they become wards of the state for the rest of their miserable lives. I've said time and time again, The gene pool needs chlorine!

Yep... Thoughts, bro?

[Age of Reason]

Why do I suspect that every single murderer from now on is going to claim to be retarded?

For the same reason I suspect we'll be hearing less about the cultural bias of IQ tests.

[RoughDobermann]

I assume that they will be ascertaining the IQs of these people by the good, old, standard IQ test? How difficult is it/would it/will it be to "fake" having a lower IQ than one actually has? From experience, I know that securing a higher score on an test is more difficult than securing a lower one...

[maxwell]

Are you by any chance blond, tall with blue eyes?

I suppose you're trying to make a case for racial discrimination within the death penalty system... Try harder, eh?

[Dog Gone]

Yes they did. An IQ of less than 70.

Good, that is helpful.

I still disagree with the decision, though. Certainly, there is an IQ level which is so low that a person doesn't have the requisite mens rea to be held criminally responsible. We excuse very young children from criminal conduct, as well as the insane. Mental retardation is simply another example of someone lacking criminal intent.

But it seems to me that if you are found to have that criminal intent, then you are no less able to understand the punishment you face.

Mental retardation should be a complete defense to prosecution for a criminal act, not a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes.

[Age of Reason]

Is this not messed up or what: First we prosecute especially viscious children as adults, and now we prosecute especially stupid adults as children.

If an adult with a mind of a child commits an especially viscious crime, we should go easy on him while throwing the book at a kid who commits the same crime?

[justshe]

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agreed with you in their dissent.