In reaching its conclusion today, the Court does not take notice of the fact that neither petitioner nor his amici have adduced any comprehensive statistics that would conclusively prove (or disprove) whether juries routinely consider death a disproportionate punishment for mentally retarded offenders like petitioner. Code Ann. Other people think that ‘retarded’ persons should be subject to the death penalty like everyone else. C (July 1999), “Some people think that persons convicted of murder who are mentally retarded (or have a mental age of between 5 and 10 years) should not be executed.
as Amici Curiae; noting that representatives of widely diverse religious communities .
See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 307 (2002) (emphasizing that Atkins testified that Jones killed Nesbitt); see also id. 1448, 1467 (1998), Some people feel that there is nothing wrong with imposing the death penalty on persons who are mentally retarded, depending on the circumstances. (a) A punishment is “excessive,” and therefore prohibited by the Amendment, if it is not graduated and proportioned to the offense. During the penalty phase of the trial, the defense presented Atkins's school records and the results of an IQ test carried out by clinical psychologist Dr. Evan Nelson confirmed that he had an IQ of 59. 492 U. S., at 334. According to Dr. Nelson, Atkins’ IQ score “would automatically qualify for Social Security disability income.” Id., at 280.
§15A–2005. The reason we ascribe primacy to legislative enactments follows from the constitutional role legislatures play in expressing policy of a State. 7 Thus, we have read the text of the amendment to prohibit all excessive punishments, as well as cruel and unusual punishments that may or may not be excessive. Ann. Proc. However, New York law provides that a sentence of death “may not be set aside … upon the ground that the defendant is mentally retarded” if “the killing occurred while the defendant was confined or under custody in a state correctional facility or local correctional institution.” N. Y. Crim. AAMR, Mental Retardation, supra. Time will telland the brief time those States have had the new disposition in place (an average of 6.8 years) is surely not enough. as Amici Curiae; Brief for AAMR et al. Lee v. Weisman (1992): The case addressed religious prayer at public-school graduation ceremonies, which the majority found to be unconstitutional. 5. 4390, 21 U. S. C. §848(l). Or a moderately retarded individual who commits a series of 20 exquisite torture-killings? And it explains, of course, why the Court can be so cavalier about the evidence of consensus. 336, 340, 909 S. W. 2d 324, 326327 (1995); Fla. Stat. Relying in part on such legislative evidence, we have held that death is an impermissibly excessive punishment for the rape of an adult woman, Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 593–596 (1977), or for a defendant who neither took life, attempted to take life, nor intended to take life, Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 789–793 (1982). He did not administer an intelligence test, but did ask Atkins questions taken from the 1972 version of the Wechsler Memory Scale. 6. prohibited at the time. To revisit this article, select My Account, then View saved stories. To further buttress its appraisal of contemporary societal values, the Court marshals public opinion poll results and evidence that several professional organizations and religious groups have adopted official positions opposing the imposition of the death penalty upon mentally retarded offenders. As Chief Justice Warren explained in his opinion in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 (1958): “The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man. They rejected Dr. Samenow’s opinion that Atkins possesses average intelligence as “incredulous as a matter of law,” and concluded that “the imposition of the sentence of death upon a criminal defendant who has the mental age of a child between the ages of 9 and 12 is excessive.” Id., at 394, 395–396, 534 S. E. 2d, at 323–324. We do not hold him immune from capital punishment, but require his background to be considered by the sentencer as a mitigating factor. Law §400.27.12(d) (McKinney 2001); N. Y. 19 App. The victims of these offenses provided graphic depictions of petitioners violent tendencies: He hit one over the head with a beer bottle, id., at 406; he slapped a gun across another victims face, clubbed her in the head with it, knocked her to the ground, and then helped her up, only to shoot her in the stomach, id., at 411413. [W]here there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution. Thompson, 487 U.S., at 868869, n. 4 (Scalia, J., dissenting). The jury also heard testimony about petitioner’s 16 prior felony convictions for robbery, attempted robbery, abduction, use of a firearm, and maiming.
Ann. It’s about one percent of the population.” App.
§214623 (1994). 476. In order to be credited here, such surveys should be offered as evidence at trial, where their sponsors can be examined and cross-examined about these matters. 2000). Such individuals are unprotected by the exemption and will continue to face the threat of execution. Thus, even if one accepts that the survey instruments were adequately designed to address a relevant question, it is impossible to know whether the sample was representative enough or the methodology sufficiently sound to tell us anything about the opinions of the citizens of a particular State or the American public at large. 10 The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. There are strong reasons for limiting our inquiry into what constitutes an evolving standard of decency under the Eighth Amendment to the laws passed by legislatures and the practices of sentencing juries in America. Moreover, within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved. Everything from variations in the survey methodology, such as the choice of the target population, the sampling design used, the questions asked, and the statistical analyses used to interpret the data can skew the results. Today’s decision is the pinnacle of our Eighth Amendment death-is-different jurisprudence. Nothing has changed the accuracy of Matthew Hale’s endorsement of the common law’s traditional method for taking account of guilt-reducing factors, written over three centuries ago: “[Determination of a person’s incapacity] is a matter of great difficulty, partly from the easiness of counterfeiting this disability … and partly from the variety of the degrees of this infirmity, whereof some are sufficient, and some are insufficient to excuse persons in capital offenses. 008727, p. 3a7a, and cited by the Court, ante, at 1112, n. 21: Arkansans Opinion on the Death Penalty, Opinion Research Associates, Inc., Q.
According to the co-conspirator, whose testimony the jury evidently credited, Atkins ordered Nesbitt out of the vehicle and, after he had taken only a few steps, shot him one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times in the thorax, chest, abdomen, arms, and legs. Laws, ch. The arrogance of this assumption of power takes one’s breath away. 14 (July 7, 1998), Samuel R. Gross, Second Thoughts: Americans Views on the Death Penalty at the Turn of the Century, Capital Punishment and the American Future (Feb. 2001), Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for mentally retarded individuals convicted of serious crimes, such as murder?, The Tarrance Group, Death Penalty Poll, Q. Exempting the mentally retarded from that punishment will not affect the “cold calculus that precedes the decision” of other potential murderers.
The prosecution, however, allowed Jones to plea bargain, protecting him … In the penalty phase of Atkins' trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled (or \"mentally retarded\" in the vernacular of the day). Times, Aug. 7, 2000 p. A1 (reporting that 10% of death row inmates are retarded). 1995), offer helpful suggestions to judges called upon to assess the weight and admissibility of survey evidence on a factual issue before a court. Indeed, that sort of calculus is at the opposite end of the spectrum from behavior of mentally retarded offenders.