Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Justices Return to a Death Penalty Issue
In 2002, the Supreme Court banned executing the "mentally retarded' in Atkins vs. Virginia. On Monday, the justices agreed to clarify how states should determine who does and does not qualify, triggered by a new case: Hall vs. Florida. In 1978, Freddie L. Hall and an accomplice sexually assaulted and beat 21 year old Karol Hurst, who was 7 months pregnant at the time. In 1999, a trial judge found Mr. Hall to be mentally handicapped, claiming him to be probably somewhat retarded and to have both learning difficulties and a speech impediment. After the Atkins case, Mr. Hall challenged his death sentence. In the case the court decided that "mentally retarded" meant three things; having an IQ lower than 70, having a lack of social skills, and having both appear before the age of 18. Hall tested three times, scoring 71, 73, and 80. The argument now is that what if a mentally retarded person is executed just because of the 70 cut-off line? Justice James E. C. Perry says that “if the bar against executing the mentally retarded is to mean anything, Freddie Lee Hall cannot be executed.” Pamela Jo Bondi, Florida's attorney general, is urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, stating that this case is just trying to get the states to not have the power to set an intelligence score for execution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This article presents two questions to the reader, firstly, should "mentally retarded" people be sentenced the death penalty; and secondly, what is the definition of "mentally retarded"? Personally, I think, though it may seem insensitive, that if the death penalty is in effect, then no one should exempt from it. Because, one, anyone who commits murder is perfectly capable of doing it a second time, no matter their circumstances, and two, in a country that believes in "freedom of opportunity", I think it could be considered unconstitutional to disallow the death penalty for one group of people, while everyone else could suffer that consequence. However, moving away from that controversial note, I think the best solution is to eliminate the death penalty entirely, therefore removing the question of whether mentally retarded people should be exempt. As far as what the legal definition should be, I believe the current one should stay as it is because, though there would still be uproar about it, the risk of defining it "incorrectly" won't resort in as big of a loss.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not have definitive views on the death penalty in general, I am very much against the idea of a "bright line cutoff" score that would excuse criminals who are thought to be mentally handicapped from the death penalty. I think it's a possibility that criminals will abuse the idea of this number to escape the death penalty. Additionally, I don't think the idea of a one-size-fits-all number to decide who is mentally handicapped is the best course of action. For example, (if I am understanding correctly), I don't think that just because someone has severe dyslexia they should be excused from the death penalty because their IQ is under a certain point.
ReplyDeleteThis case appears to be another example of the two (supposedly) separate spheres, the federal and state governments, becoming ever less separate. The death penalty, as a result of Supreme Court decisions, has transitioned from being a state to a federal issue. Personally, it is not the federal government’s responsibility to determine who is able to be executed or not—it is a matter that ought to be left to the states. While I personally hold some reservations about the use of the death penalty, it is a state issue and not a federal issue. With regards to whether or not an intelligence test should be able to determine who should be executed (should there be a need to make people ineligible for the death penalty), I would say that there needs to be some objective cut off to determine whether or not someone is eligible. What would be the best indicator, I cannot say (that should be left to experts), but I feel that an intelligence test, with a potential to vary, is a flawed indicator.
ReplyDeleteThis case is simply ridiculous to be in front of the Supreme Court. Now you could make the case that the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, does make this somewhat of a Federal issue but solely in the regard of his mental disability, not the correctness of the Death Penalty. While I am not a fan of the use of the death penalty I think it is a good deterrent for heinous crimes. Now I am not an expert but I think that a hard line isn't exactly the best way to approach whether someone is eligible to be executed or not. What needs to be determined, rather than the fact that they are mentally disabled, is whether they knew what they were doing was wrong. The intent of the person when they committed the crime is what matters not whether their IQ is below 70. The best solution, in my opinion, is to require evaluations by multiple experts along with a recommendation from them as to the eligibility of the person according to the law, that the judge could weigh as they see fit. The recommendation should include whether they feel that the persons mental disability would have impeded their decision making or understanding of how terrible the crime is that they committed. This, though, should only be used in regards to the death penalty and not whether the person should be in jail or not.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really difficult issue because it has to do with whether a mentally disabled person can be held responsible for his/her actions to the same level that other people can. In general, I'm against the death penalty, but my issue with it is rooted in the uncertainty of events of cases; if there is a chance that a person did not actually commit the crime, they shouldn't be executed. However, I don't think there should be a cut-and-dry restriction for executing mentally retarded people. What needs to be determined is malicious intent. If the person was truly aware of the severity of their crime and committed it anyway, then that person should face the full consequence of the law. If experts say otherwise, then considerations should be made. A law absolutely excluding the mentally handicapped from the death penalty doesn't fit given the range of mental disabilities and the range of complexity of various crimes,
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of cases where individuals have been wrongly accused and later released from jail. However, there's no way to bring back somebody from the dead. The death penalty is absolutely permanent. A mistake in the court system could sentence an innocent person to death. I think the bigger issue is the legality of the death penalty. Individuals facing charges can site mental illness as an excuse. In general, I don't think mental handicaps or mental illness should be used as an excuse for actions. If a person commits a crime, he has to be held accountable even if that person can't comprehend the severity of his actions because what will stop him from doing it again? A cut-off IQ score is a bad idea for several reasons. IQ scores, depending on the day or state of mind, can vary and it's possible to play the system to appear to have a low IQ. Mentally handicaps do not necessarily equate to a misunderstanding of right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am strongly against the death penalty. I believe its in-humane, and wrong. However, I have a problem with the "mentally retarded" getting off the death penalty if everyone else isn't. Yes some may not be able to be held responsible for their actions, but an action is an action. If a mentally handicapped person commits a crime, he/she is capable of that crime just as much as a normal person. Therefore I do not think that the penalty should be any different. I think we should just get rid of the death penalty all together.
ReplyDeleteI think Ethan's comment about whether or not a "mentally retarded" person understands what he or she has done is important. Even if a person tries to claim to be "mentally retarded" to escape the death penalty, if experts can prove a person understands the severity of what he or she did, that person should be tried the same way someone who is not deemed mentally retarded would be. That being said the results of a test of comprehension of an event could be swayed one way or the other. In addition that point, the actual process of determining if someone is mentally retarded seems inaccurate at points. IQ test give a general area of where a person's intelligence lies, and as he takes the test more and more times, his score tends to increase, so an IQ test is not always accurate and certainly should not have a set score for whether or not a person is mentally retarded. In general I am against the death penalty because we are not all knowing and cannot tell a person's thoughts, deeds, and intentions are.
ReplyDeleteI think Ethan's comment about whether or not a "mentally retarded" person understands what he or she has done is important. Even if a person tries to claim to be "mentally retarded" to escape the death penalty, if experts can prove a person understands the severity of what he or she did, that person should be tried the same way someone who is not deemed mentally retarded would be. That being said the results of a test of comprehension of an event could be swayed one way or the other. In addition that point, the actual process of determining if someone is mentally retarded seems inaccurate at points. IQ test give a general area of where a person's intelligence lies, and as he takes the test more and more times, his score tends to increase, so an IQ test is not always accurate and certainly should not have a set score for whether or not a person is mentally retarded. In general I am against the death penalty because we are not all knowing and cannot tell a person's thoughts, deeds, and intentions are.
ReplyDeleteI am a person who has always agreed with the saying "an eye for an eye." If somebody takes another person's life, they should have the same thing happen to them, so they know what it is like. But in this situation I am not so sure. It comes down to if the person understood their actions or not, but just like the article says, it is to be proven they are "mentally retarded". That can be a huge challenge. However I don't agree with the IQ cutoff score. If you are just over, you can still be "mentally retarded" and unaware of your actions. What I'm trying to say is if this man truly did not understand his actions he should not be put to death.
ReplyDeleteI believe the death penalty is a necessary deterrent of crime. If you are a criminal you are going to be much more hesitant to commit a serious crime when you know that if convicted you may be put to death. Besides deterring criminals in the first place, I believe the death penalty is fair as a form of punishment. Is a murderer's life worth more than the innocent person they killed? As far as the mentally retarded go I don't think we should be determining their fate through an IQ test. I think there has to be a better way to determine if this person actually was aware of their actions, and the consequences of those actions.
ReplyDeleteSorry Stephen, but I disagree. I feel that the death penalty is not necessary, nor is it an effective deterrent of crime. Criminals commit crimes assuming that they'll never be caught. If one is planning to rob a bank and shoot two security guards, the consequences of their actions is probably the last thing on their minds.
ReplyDeletePeople are sometimes wrongly convicted of crimes. There should be no need for an IQ cutoff score because an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Maybe it's me, but I feel that living and never seeing the light of day or feeling a breeze ever again is a worse punishment than being put to death.
I am a fan of the death penalty for those who commit murder themselves. However, one with a mental disability should be an exception to this law. Say, for example, a mentally challenged man killed a random stranger in downtown Philadelphia today. The murderer, the mentally challenged man, probably does not know any better. It reminds me of the character Lenny from Of Mice And Men: Lenny is a mentally challenged, Paul Bunyan-like man whose only desire is to touch Curly's wife's hair. Something went wrong and Lenny ended up killing her. Here is an example of a mentally challenged man who commits murder because he simply gets upset and does not know any better.
ReplyDeleteIn summary, do I support the death penalty for heinous crimes? Yes. Do I think that the mentally retarded deserve the death penalty? Unless proven that there was a clear motive involved, no I do not.
I agree with Christian. Having to live with yourself locked away in a cell would be a punishment worse than death for most. Obviously mentally challenged people should not be executed, but put in an institution that fits their specific needs. The IQ cutoff is tricky, as you can never really know what's going on in someone's mind. Hopefully as our knowledge of the human mind progresses, some clarity can be reached on these issues.
ReplyDeleteI think the death penalty is a poor method of punishment. It can really be ineffective vs. a lifetime imprisonment because both are completely unpleasant, and it also has a drastic no-return policy if someone is convicted falsely. When it comes to whether or not someone labelled as "mentally retarded" should be exempt from the death penalty, I believe it is a case-by-case basis. As Ethan said, what needs to be found is malicious intent for the crime and then puishment can be mandated. There are people who can be mentally disabled and still commit a crime with malicious intent, and there are also those who commit a crime without intent - as Heller explained Lenny from Of Mice and Men. Because of this variability, a test score line should not be a definign point, but rely on expert opinion and judgement.
ReplyDelete