Promoting, Dignity, Equality and Self-Determination
Washington Protection & Advocacy System
Home ׀
About WPAS ׀
News ׀
Self-Advocacy
׀ Public Policy
׀ Publications
׀ Contact
WPAS
E-Mail Updates
׀ Support WPAS
׀ Search
Supreme Court Bans Executions of People with Cognitive Disabilities
by Elizabeth Baldwin
June 20, 2002
Editor's Note: On Wednesday, June 19, the Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding the legality of executing people with cognitive disabilities. Throughout the opinion issued by the court – and the news reports about the decision – the term “mental retardation” was used to refer to individuals with cognitive disabilities who met a particular standard created by individual states. Throughout this article, we have used the term, “cognitive disabilities” to mean those individuals covered by this decision.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, June 19 that executing persons with cognitive disabilities constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This important Court opinion, delivered by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, makes it illegal for any state to execute a person with a cognitive disability. This means that prisoners who meet a state’s standards for cognitive disability and are currently on death row will have the potential to obtain a reprieve excusing them from execution.
While the ruling allows states to make their own determination of what “cognitive disability” means, in most states, an IQ of 70 or lower qualifies. Notably, in this case, the Court ruled in favor of a Virginia inmate, Daryl Renard Atkins, who was convicted of shooting an Air Force enlisted man for beer money, and was determined to have an IQ of 59.
In his opinion, Justice Stevens reasoned that capital punishment is inappropriate when applied to persons with cognitive disabilities because it should be reserved for the most culpable of criminals. Although Stevens acknowledged that many persons with cognitive disabilities know the difference between right and wrong, they differ from the most culpable criminals because they are more likely to act impulsively or to be influenced by others. Furthermore, they often make poor witnesses, appearing unrepentant on the witness stand. Therefore, they are at high risk of “wrongful execution.” In addition, Stevens asserted that the punishment would fail its stated purpose of providing retribution to society, or deterring future heinous crimes by persons with cognitive disabilities.
This ruling reflects a shift in our nation’s attitude about capital punishment for persons with cognitive disabilities. Only 12 years ago, Justice O’Connor led a majority of the Court in a decision upholding the constitutionality of executing persons with “mental retardation.” At that time, the Court could not find a national consensus that such executions were “cruel and unusual.” Of the states where the death penalty was legal, only two prohibited capital punishment for persons with cognitive disabilities. By this Thursday, however, that number had jumped to 18. Combined with the 12 other states that have already outlawed the death penalty in all cases, a total of 30 states have outlawed executing persons with cognitive disabilities. Justice Stevens asserted that the laws of those 30 states create evidence of a national consensus that executing such individuals constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment.
Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented, claiming that the Court relied on opinion polls and other unreliable instruments to find a national consensus. Furthermore, they expressed concern that current inmates will now have incentive to make false claims of cognitive disability to avoid the death penalty.
The ruling will have no legal affect on the application of the death penalty to persons without cognitive disabilities.
● Back to Envoy Archives ● Back to Envoy Online ● Back to Home Page ●
