Supreme Court Declares Execution of People Who Are Mentally Retarded
Feature Story by Teresa Kraly - 6/20/2002
Civil and human rights advocates are celebrating a 6-3 Supreme Court decision barring the execution of mentally retarded as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision overturns a previous Supreme Court decision that upheld the practice, and is in sync with several state-level prohibitions of such executions.
"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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented.
The decision came in favor of Daryl Renard Atkins, a Virginia inmate with an IQ of 59 who has never lived on his own or held a job. He was convicted in 1996 of killing an Air Force enlisted man for beer money.
The ruling will immediately affect the 20 states which allow executions of people who are mentally retarded. Experts expect that dozens to hundreds of inmates will now argue that because they are mentally retarded, their sentences should be converted to life in prison.
In the future, individuals convicted of committing capital crimes will not face a death sentence if they can establish they are mentally retarded -- often defined as having an IQ of 70 or lower.
The Justice Project, an organization for the reform of the criminal justice system, says the decision "reflects a growing national concern that the administration of the death penalty is unfair. This decision comes at a time when there is growing agreement among death penalty proponents and opponents alike that the capital punishment system is broken."
Steven W. Hawkins, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, sees the decision as the tip of the iceberg. "The Supreme Court has recognized that executing mentally retarded people violates the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," he said . "The next step for the court should be to apply the same, exact standard to the execution of youthful offenders."
