Facts of the Case
Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. 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). The jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court had used a misleading verdict form. During resentencing the same forensic psychologist testified, but this time the State rebutted Atkins' intelligence. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded.
Questions
Is the execution of mentally retarded persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Since it last confronted the issue, the Court reasoned that a significant number of States have concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal. Moreover, the Court concluded that there was serious concern whether either justification underpinning the death penalty - retribution and deterrence of capital crimes - applies to mentally retarded offenders, due to their lessened culpability. "Construing and applying the Eighth Amendment in the light of our 'evolving standards of decency,' we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution 'places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life' of a mentally retarded offender," wrote Justice Stevens. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia filed dissenting opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas joined both. "This newest invention promises to be more effective than any of the others in turning the process of capital trial into a game," argued Justice Scalia.
Moore v. Texas - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast featuring Joanmarie Davoli
On March 28, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Moore v. Texas, a habeas corpus dispute...
Moore v. Texas - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 1-13-17 featuring Kent S. Scheidegger
On November 29, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Texas. In...
Courthouse Steps: Moore v. Texas - Podcast
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
On November 29, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. Texas. This case...
Hall v. Florida - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 7-15-14 featuring Kent Scheidegger
On May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hall v. Florida. The...
Intellectual Disability, National Origin, and the Death Penalty – Hernandez v. Stephens - Podcast
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
In 2000, Ramiro Hernandez was convicted in Texas state court of murdering his employer, and...
Barwatch Bulletin from August 11, 2007
August 11, 2007
ABA Opening AssemblyJustice Stephen Breyer offered remarks at the ABA Opening Assembly. He opened by...
The Sovereignty Implications of Two Recent Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court, in two recent cases (Lawrence v. Texas and Atkins v. Virginia) is continuing...
