If mentally retarded persons are now an official, federally protected class with respect to the death penalty does this open the door to various governmental (or related) entities being able to further restrict the lifestyle options for retarded people because they are now constitutionally defined (via SCOTUS interpretation of the 8th amendment) as special class needing special care and handling with respect to how society sanctions them.
In other words can this ruling, even though nominally compassionate with respect to dealing with retarded criminals potentially further infantilize and restrict the rights of retarded people in the future?
Me neither. but I do disagree with the decision. The purpose of executing a dangerous criminal isn’t to teach him a lesson, it’s to remove a dangerous and uncorrectable element from society. Somebody who is retarded badly enough that they don’t know that killing is wrong, and shows an inclination to do so, should be executed.
Of course, I think all first-degree murder and rape should carry execution as the standard penalty, but still…
This is a decision I will be reading in its entirety.
What interests me most is the conclusion that whether an act is “cruel and unusual” depends, at least in part, on public opinion–that’s a subjective and changeable standard. At first blush, this seems reasonable–we don’t flog people or put them in stocks anymore. Nonetheless, so many arguments in favor of the death penalty itself have looked “to the founders” and the fact that the death penalty existed in the late 1700s; this looks like a recipe for uncertainty about the death penalty itself.
Also, I want to think about whether the words “cruel and unusual” inherently require reference to time, place and culture and, if they do, why these words are different from all or most other adjectives in the Bill of Rights.
Again, thinking out loud, what if torture is not cruel and unusual for many communities in 2010? Don’t we want the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to be objective and absolute? Is “national concensus” a euphemism for bowing to majority opinion? I really want to read the justifications for this decision.
Of course, the conclusion that this standard is changeable is in part dictated by the fact that the court had to overturn a precedent. So much for principle for the majority–of course, the dissent doesn’t rely on principle either: Rehnquist isn’t upset on principle, he’s upset because it will make it more difficult for courts to work through the appeals process.
I don’t understand what cruel and unusual has to do with being retarded. Why would it be more cruel and unusual to kill/execute a retarded person than to do the same to an intelligent person? I could understand if the reasoning was some form of diminished capacity. But the court did not use that approach.
(I also don’t understand this OP. Where is the implication that retarded people are a specially protected class of people. The court held that the same act can be cruel and unusual when done to one person but not when done to another. this does not imply any special protection.)
I disagree with the decision as well. Now you are going to have all these executions delayed because lawyers are going to try and prove their cleints are retarded.
The prupose of the death penalty is not to be a deterrent. In my opinion it is to remove undesirables from the planet, and retribution.
First, why should it matter if they can tell right from wrong? I agree with Joe_Cool on that count. Moreover, aren’t retarded killers even LESS correctable than the average criminal? After all, it is their learning abilities that are impaired. Imprisonment will certainly not help them.
Second, it bothers me that the decision was influenced not only by popular American opinion, but also by international opinion. I’m not generally a rabid nationalist or isolationist, but the other nations of the world can mind thier own business when it comes to how we handle our criminal justice system.
Third, it increases my uneasiness with the Justice Project. I am all for mandatory consideration of DNA evidence in ALL relevant cases. Why unneccesarily punish the demonstrably innocent (although, given the structure of legal system, “unguilty” might be a better term)? However, their stance on this case tends to support those on the right who see them as seeking a backdoor for eliminating the death penalty. Why remove any class of people from punishment except those found “not guilty”?
Fourth & probably finally, I predict that we’ll be seeing a whole bunch of “retarded” criminals in the future. If there’s a hard barrier , a brigtline for determining retardation, say, IQ 70, the gambit becomes pretty clear: “Yes, your Honor, I shot him on the way to my IQ test…I only got a 63 though…”
[half-serious conspiracy theory paranioa]However, couldn’t general limiting conditions be construed as retardation? Autism, downs, etc… Here’s a fun side door to eliminate the death penalty: get a bunch of psychologists (or the appropritate medical professionals) opposed to the death penalty to declare the criminal urge a form of retardation…presto! no more executions…[/half-serious conspiracy theory paranioa]
Here’s another thought- if we declare that people with an IQ of, say, 80 or below are not responsible for their actions, and shouldn’t be punished for their crimes because they don’t understand what they’re doing…
Well, what of the retarded people who perform acts of kindness? What of the retarded people who perform acts of heroism?
Do we say, “Don’t give that soldier a medal for his courage in battle- his IQ is 75. He couldn’t possibly understand what he was doing”?
Do we say, “Don’t give that kid a reward for rescuing a lost animal. He has Down’s Syndrome. He didn’t know that was he was doing was nice”?
The question is, are the mentally handicapped only responsible for their actions when they do good things?
Again, I believe both sides here agree that retarded people can tell the difference between right and wrong. (This is also true of various retarded people I’ve met). For this reason, retarded people will not be declared innocent at trial - they will be given other sentences. For some reason the USSC found the death penalty specifically to be cruel and unusual in the case of retarded people.
This from the San Francisco Chronicle (June 20, 2002) may clarify what has happened, but it certainly doesn’t un-muddy the waters.
So, a killer who has an IQ of 71 may be executed, because he’s not retarded – merely stupid, while another vicious individual who lacks one point on a largely discredited standardized test gets a pass? Joe_Cool has it right. It’s not a matter of cruelty toward those who can’t help themselves as much as it is a matter of society protecting itself from persons who are dangerous and cannot be made less so.
This decision seems to hinge on the word “unusual,” and that only because a number of states have outlawed executions of “retarded” individuals, making it less “usual” than it was in 1989. Pretty thin basis for such a sweeping decision IMHO.
The rationale for the decision was that since in the past 14 years about half of the death penalty states have outlawed the execution of the retarded that constitutes a national consensus that executing the retarded is unusual. Scalia’s dissent is very eloquent on what a crock this is. This is another example of Justices’ saying “If I don’t like it it must be unconstitutional”
Er, astorian, I hate to break this to you, but nobody is suggesting that the retarded not be punished, just that they not be executed. Don’t hurt yourself on that strawman, though. They get scratchy sometimes.
Really, I don’t see what the big to-do is. Putting aside all the other scare talk about a sudden deluge of IQ-test-based appeals, if an adult criminal offender is developmentally and intellectually at the same level as a juvenile, then it stands to reason (IMO, anyway) that he or she should face the same range of punishments as a juvenile. Most states don’t execute juveniles, ergo . . .
Fine, **[pld/b], if you really think that a ten-year-old doesn’t know what a gun is and that killing is bad. I think the laws limiting penalties on juviniles are, well, juvinile. A criminal is a criminal, and should pay the price. The test, as with the “insane,” should be whether the perpetrateor knew the difference between right and wrong and appreciated the consequences of his actions. Period. Call me DesertDraco if it makes you feel better,but I’m not inclined to give a pass to anybody who shoots a man eight times in order to steal from him.
As to the OP, there will no doubt be a lot of IQ test flunkies trying to get themselves eliminated from the death penalty. They may be challenged, but nobody’s that stupid, I believe this whole issue has less to do with fairness to the mentally challenged than with eliminating the death penalty altogether.
You can remove a dangerous and uncontrollable element from society without executing them. It is commonly called life in prison without possibility of parole.
Execution of the mentally retarded is a cruel and unusual punishment, and if it is only the first step in the cessation of capital punishment that’s perfectly fine with me.
“Here, take this IQ test. If you get a high enough score, we’ll kill you.”
I don’t know about you, but it would take the phrase “test anxiety” to a whole new level for me. And I imagine it might have a negative effect on my performance.
Not to mention that the line of reasoning is that the murderer in question was smart enough to understand that other people die, but not smart enough to understand that he would, too.
—First, why should it matter if they can tell right from wrong?—
Uh, it matters a HUGE deal. If you can’t tell right from wrong at the time of the crime, you can’t be convicted in the first place. But this is not what the decision is about anyway.