The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that mentally retarded people cannot be given the death penalty because they don’t have the same level of moral responsibility as other criminals. The case involved Daryl Renard Atkins, who was involved in a robbery and murder. His accomplice, William Jones, received a lesser sentence in exchange for testifying against Atkins. Jones and Atkins both blamed each other for shooting and killing Nesbitt. Atkins gave a statement to the police, while Jones did not. At trial, the prosecutor pointed out inconsistencies in Atkins’ statement to make him seem unreliable. The jury believed Jones and found Atkins guilty of murder.
In the penalty phase of the trial, the defense said Atkins had a low IQ and was mildly mentally retarded. However, the jury still sentenced Atkins to death. The Virginia Supreme Court ordered a new sentencing hearing due to a mistake in the verdict form. At the second hearing, the defense again said Atkins was mentally retarded, but the prosecution’s expert disagreed without testing Atkins’ IQ. The jury still sentenced Atkins to death. Mental retardation is a condition where people have trouble learning and understanding things. This includes problems with language, memory, and thinking ahead. These difficulties usually show up before the person turns 18. Mental retardation can be caused by things like genetics, illness, or trauma. To figure out if someone is mentally retarded, experts look at their history and do tests. In the criminal justice system, mentally retarded people can have a hard time making decisions that affect their case. The first questioning in a legal case can be tough. The person being questioned has to decide if they want to stay quiet or speak to the police. Most lawyers will tell them to stay quiet, but people with intellectual disabilities may not understand that. They might want to please the police so much that they say things that aren’t true, and end up believing those things themselves. They might do this because they want to be liked and accepted. They might even sign papers without understanding what they are signing. Then, the court might say that they agreed to everything on their own, even if they didn’t understand. Earl Washington and Eddie Mitchell, both with intellectual disabilities, were wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. Even though they didn’t understand their rights, they were still found fit for trial. The legal system didn’t consider their disabilities and they didn’t get a fair chance to defend themselves. They were convicted based on their confessions, even though they didn’t fully understand what was happening. It’s important for the legal system to better understand and accommodate people with intellectual disabilities. Billy Dwayne White was a mentally disabled man accused of murder in Texas. His lawyer didn’t know about his disability, and during his trial, he fell asleep. The prosecutor used this as evidence against him, and he was sentenced to death and executed.
It’s important for the jury to know about a defendant’s mental disability so they can consider it when deciding on a punishment. But sometimes, even if the jury knows, it doesn’t guarantee a fair outcome. Some people argue that there were already rules in place to protect mentally disabled defendants before the Atkins case. The Court didn’t fully ban the death penalty for people with mental disabilities in the Penry case, but they did send the case back for a new punishment hearing because they didn’t think the jury was able to consider all the evidence. But in the new hearing, the same questions were asked to the jury. Now the case is being appealed. In 2002, the Supreme Court talked about how things had changed since a previous ruling. At that time, only two states and the federal government had laws against executing people with mental disabilities. But since then, 15 more states have passed similar laws. The Court said this shows that society now sees mentally disabled offenders as less responsible for their actions. The Court also said that the death penalty doesn’t work as a punishment or deterrent for mentally disabled people, because they can’t understand things and control their behavior like other people. So, it’s not fair or useful to keep executing mentally disabled people. The Supreme Court ruled that it’s unconstitutional to execute people with intellectual disabilities. Florida was one of the last states to agree to this. They passed a law defining intellectual disability as having an IQ of 70 or below and significant problems with daily activities. This means that people with these disabilities can’t be sentenced to death in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court hasn’t decided if a law that determines if someone with mental retardation can be sentenced to death is fair. Some parts of the law may not be okay because of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The law says that a judge, not a jury, decides if someone is mentally retarded. This might change based on the recent rulings. The law also says that the evidence must be very clear to determine if someone is mentally retarded. And the law doesn’t apply to people who were sentenced before the law was passed, but that might not be right according to the U.S. Supreme Court. This text discusses the rights of people with mental disabilities in the legal system. It mentions a specific case and a law in Florida. It also includes information about a mediator who works in this area.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-demise-of-the-death-penalty-for-the-mentally-retarded/
Leave a Reply