Penry V. Lynaugh Decision
On June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with mental retardation violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, overruling its Penry v. Lynaugh decision in 1989.
People with mental retardation are at a higher risk of wrongful convictions and death sentences. They may be more likely to falsely confess to a crime because they want to please the authorities that are investigating the crime. They are less able than others to work with their lawyers to help to prepare their defense. Because of the stigma attached to mental retardation, people with this disability often become adept at hiding it, even from their lawyer, not understanding the importance of this information …show more content…
to the outcome of the case.
The first argument is the most global: execution of those who suffer from mental illness violates equal protection of the laws in those states which prohibit execution of children (i.e., all states), or at least in those jurisdictions which prohibit execution of people who are mentally retarded (numbering about a dozen).9 The second argument assumes that execution of people who are mentally ill is constitutional as a general proposition, but relies on the assertion made above that capital sentencing juries usually treat mental illness as an aggravating circumstance; on this assumption, the bulk of death sentences imposed on mentally ill people are deprivations of life without due process of law.10 The third argument assumes that a valid death sentence has been imposed, but shows why most mentally ill people on death row should not be executed either because they are incompetent under Ford, properly construed, or because their competence is maintained through an unconstitutional imposition of medication.11
First, such executions would violate equal protection of the laws in any jurisdiction in which execution of children and people with mental retardation is barred. Second, many death sentences imposed on people with mental illness violate due process because their mental illness is treated by the factfinder as an aggravating factor, either directly or to bolster a separate aggravating circumstance. Third, many mentally ill offenders who are sentenced to death will be so impaired at the time of execution that they can not emotionally appreciate the significance of their punishment and thus cannot be executed under the eighth amendment; the latter conclusion is required even if they are restorable through treatment, given the unethical and medically inappropriate role in which such treatment casts mental health professionals.
The New Death Penalty Bans: Can We Have it Both Ways?
In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the death penalty was not "cruel and unusual punishment" as defined under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Twelve years later, the high court ruled that the death penalty for people considered to have mental retardation also was not "cruel and unusual punishment."
At that time only two states that had the death penalty specifically banned execution of convicts who have mental retardation. As of this writing, 14 of the 38 states with a death penalty have ruled it out for inmates with mental retardation. Several other states are considering similar measures.
This is certainly good news for those inmates, their supporters, and people considered to have mental retardation that may be accused of capital crimes now or in the future. It is also good news for lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, jurors - and much of the American public -- who now have a relatively simple answer to a very complicated issue.
What does this mean for other people that have been labeled as having mental retardation or other disabilities but are law-abiding citizens?
I worry that the trend toward banning executions for this one group of people actually has the potential to set disability rights, particularly the self-advocacy movement, back a couple of decades. I am also concerned that the ways in which it is decided who lives and who dies is unfair and discriminatory.
Before going any further I need to explain that I oppose the death penalty and think it should be banned across the country. Perhaps, if a loved one of mine had died violently, I would feel differently, but as it is I can find no good reason to support it. Capital punishment is a barbaric practice for a society that considers itself "civilized."
It is also not given fairly. Minorities and people who grow up in poverty are executed much more often than whites and those who have money. As technology improves, we are seeing more and more cases where people who had been convicted and sentenced to death were later cleared through DNA tests, or from confessions from the real killers. We often read or hear about people who were "framed", or were with the "wrong bunch of people" at the wrong time.
The United States prides itself on fairness and justice and as Americans we feel particularly bad about executing innocent people. We also feel bad about executing people who commit a crime, but who might not have realized that what they did was wrong, did not understand the consequences of what they did, or who do not understand the legal system enough to defend themselves.
Defense attorneys are chosen and are given the moral, legal, and ethical obligation to defend their clients to the best of their ability. This means pleading their defendant¹s case before judges and juries. In recent cases, defenders have also appealed to state legislators, the public, the media and Supreme Court justices.
Some of the current and proposed laws simply use an IQ score to determine whether a defendant is competent. If the person scored below a certain number, they are not put on the executioner¹s list. In other states, defense attorneys have to work harder to prove that the accused has mental retardation and does not fully understand what they were doing or what the results of those actions would be.
This issue about competence gets us into trouble: The self-determination movement is based on the assumption that people are competent enough to guide their own lives, regardless of their label or "level" of disability. The "ban-the-death-penalty-for-the-mentally-retarded" movement is based on the assumption that people labeled as having mental retardation are not competent.
What happens when we try to have it both ways?
When a convict is considered to have mental retardation, defenders try to make the audience feel pity and guilt, by showing the person as helpless and child-like. After all, no judge or jury would want to give a lethal injection to a child. Missouri death row inmate Antonio Richardson is often referred to as "a 26-year-old man with the mind of a 6-year-old child". Convicted murderer John Penry is quoted as believing in Santa Claus and described as enjoying drawing stick figures with crayons. The focus on what the person cannot do in order to give the impression he cannot do anything, let alone kill somebody.
Efforts to rescue these convicts by showing them as stupid or childish strengthen the negative stereotypes that we have been trying to get rid of for so long. How can that possibly be a positive thing for, as an example, a 26-year-old woman with a label of "mild mental retardation", who is trying desperately to advocate for herself, to have some independence and control over her life? How can she convince those around her that she knows what is best for herself, if by association she is seen as a "child in an adult body"?
Another problem with singling out one group of people is that it reinforces the idea that people labeled as having mental retardation are "special" and ought to have "special" treatment. After decades of working toward equality, the bans on death sentences for one specific group further separate people from one another and widen the "Us versus Them" gap.
These new laws also reinforce the public perception that all a convict has to do to stay alive is "cheat" by pretending to have mental retardation or to be an underachiever during or before IQ testing. While this may rarely happen, recent news events where people have successfully faked having a disability have strengthened this idea. If ten men without disabilities can successfully win gold medals as members of Spain's "intellectually disabled" Paralympic basketball team, what might a person do to save his own life?
Some states choose the IQ test, or a battery of other "objective" standardized tests, because it is considered by many experts to be a fair and impartial tool to decide if the person has mental retardation. After all, outside the criminal justice system such tests have been used for millions of people to determine who would or would not be eligible for government benefits or services.
Usually, but not always, a person who scores at or below 70 is considered to have mental retardation. So in death penalty cases, a person scoring 68 lives, while a person scoring 72 dies. That can be hard to figure out for somebody like Oliver David Cruz who scored 63 on an IQ test one time and 76 another. (Incidentally, Cruz, a Texas death row inmate executed last August, was reported to have said that he would rather die than be called "retarded.")
There are two big problems with taking a tool designed to determine eligibility for services, and using it to decide if a person was competent enough to face the ultimate punishment.
One is that standardized testing is far from objective. Test scores can reflect the skills, attitudes or motives of the tester more than we would want to believe. I¹ve seen it myself. A simple nod here, or a smile or frown there from the person giving the test could make the difference of several points, whether the test-giver realizes it or not. Also, I have personally known of many cases where a professional admitted to deliberately "fudging" scores in order to help an adult or a child qualify for services.
Of course, defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges often bring in specialists who know how to administer such tests in a professional manner. But, to keep "cheating" at a minimum, many states require the "evidence" of whether the person has mental retardation to have been documented any time before he or she was 18 or 21. Does it make sense to base a life or death decision on, for example, a test done 25 years ago by an elementary school teacher who may have "fudged" a student¹s test score to show others how good a teacher she was?
Another problem is that even if these tests were objective, they could not determine whether the person was innocent or competent. My own experience has shown me that IQ scores are only good at telling how well a person does on IQ tests. Not much more, not much less.
I've known people that were labeled as being in the "severe level of mental disability" who were much more skilled at understanding human behavior than the PhDs administering the tests. I've also known so-called "geniuses" with IQ scores above 140 who did not understand the difference between right and wrong or the consequences of their actions. I don¹t know anybody who understands the criminal justice system.
There are countless examples of people labeled with mental retardation who have confessed to crimes they did not commit, who were represented by incompetent attorneys, who did not understand their rights under the legal system, or who were "framed" by others. However, there are countless examples of people without those labels who have experienced the same types of injustices.
So, while there is a death penalty, there do need to be safeguards in place within the legal system to keep people who have disabilities from being treated unfairly. And we do need to work toward there being a level playing field.
But to say those injustices happen because these convicts are incompetent, helpless and child-like, insults not only them, but also people with disabilities who are making good choices every day.
When we make "special" laws and say this person lives because of his "competency" score and this one dies because of his, we throw up more barriers for people who struggle to get others to recognize their abilities and the right to direct their own lives.
We can¹t have it both ways.
Discrimination is, after all, discrimination.
Edlyn D. Malang January 14, 2012
BSAC 2 8:30-9:30 TTHS PHILO 2 1. Construct a moral argument defending the governor’s action.
The decision of the governor is reasonable because there are people who might "cheat" by pretending to have mental retardation or to be an underachiever during or before IQ testing to stay alive. Although this may rarely happen, recent news events where people have successfully faked having a disability have strengthened this idea. We don’t know what a person might do to save his own life. There are a lot of people who are willing to do anything just to save their lives. Usually, but not always, a person who scores at or below 70 is considered to have mental retardation. So in death penalty cases, a person scoring 68 lives, while a person scoring 72 dies. That can be hard to figure out for somebody like Oliver David Cruz who scored 63 on an IQ test one time and 76 another. (Incidentally, Cruz, a Texas death row inmate executed last August, was reported to have said that he would rather die than be called "retarded.")
There are two big problems with taking a tool designed to determine eligibility for services, and using it to decide if a person was competent enough to face the ultimate punishment.
One is that standardized testing is far from objective. Test scores can reflect the skills, attitudes or motives of the tester more than we would want to believe. I¹ve seen it myself. A simple nod here, or a smile or frown there from the person giving the test could make the difference of several points, whether the test-giver realizes it or not. Also, I have personally known of many cases where a professional admitted to deliberately "fudging" scores in order to help an adult or a child qualify for services.
Of course, defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges often bring in specialists who know how to administer such tests in a professional manner. But, to keep "cheating" at a minimum, many states require the "evidence" of whether the person has mental retardation to have been documented any time before he or she was 18 or 21. Does it make sense to base a life or death decision on, for example, a test done 25 years ago by an elementary school teacher who may have "fudged" a student¹s test score to show others how good a teacher she was?
2. Construct an argument opposing the governor’s decision.
3. Do you agree with governor’s action?
I disagree with the governor’s action
Of course, defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges often bring in specialists who know how to administer such tests in a professional manner.
But, to keep "cheating" at a minimum, many states require the "evidence" of whether the person has mental retardation to have been documented any time before he or she was 18 or 21. Does it make sense to base a life or death decision on, for example, a test done 25 years ago by an elementary school teacher who may have "fudged" a student¹s test score to show others how good a teacher she was?
Another problem is that even if these tests were objective, they could not determine whether the person was innocent or competent. My own experience has shown me that IQ scores are only good at telling how well a person does on IQ tests. Not much more, not much less.
I've known people that were labeled as being in the "severe level of mental disability" who were much more skilled at understanding human behavior than the PhDs administering the tests. I've also known so-called "geniuses" with IQ scores above 140 who did not understand the difference between right and wrong or the consequences of their actions. I don¹t know anybody who understands the criminal justice
system.
There are countless examples of people labeled with mental retardation who have confessed to crimes they did not commit, who were represented by incompetent attorneys, who did not understand their rights under the legal system, or who were "framed" by others. However, there are countless examples of people without those labels who have experienced the same types of injustices.
So, while there is a death penalty, there do need to be safeguards in place within the legal system to keep people who have disabilities from being treated unfairly. And we do need to work toward there being a level playing field.
But to say those injustices happen because these convicts are incompetent, helpless and child-like, insults not only them, but also people with disabilities who are making good choices every day.
When we make "special" laws and say this person lives because of his "competency" score and this one dies because of his, we throw up more barriers for people who struggle to get others to recognize their abilities and the right to direct their own lives.
We can¹t have it both ways.
People with mental retardation are at a higher risk of wrongful convictions and death sentences. They may be more likely to falsely confess to a crime because they want to please the authorities that are investigating the crime. They are less able than others to work with their lawyers to help to prepare their defense. Because of the stigma attached to mental retardation, people with this disability often become adept at hiding it, even from their lawyer, not understanding the importance of this information …show more content…
to the outcome of the case.
The first argument is the most global: execution of those who suffer from mental illness violates equal protection of the laws in those states which prohibit execution of children (i.e., all states), or at least in those jurisdictions which prohibit execution of people who are mentally retarded (numbering about a dozen).9 The second argument assumes that execution of people who are mentally ill is constitutional as a general proposition, but relies on the assertion made above that capital sentencing juries usually treat mental illness as an aggravating circumstance; on this assumption, the bulk of death sentences imposed on mentally ill people are deprivations of life without due process of law.10 The third argument assumes that a valid death sentence has been imposed, but shows why most mentally ill people on death row should not be executed either because they are incompetent under Ford, properly construed, or because their competence is maintained through an unconstitutional imposition of medication.11
First, such executions would violate equal protection of the laws in any jurisdiction in which execution of children and people with mental retardation is barred. Second, many death sentences imposed on people with mental illness violate due process because their mental illness is treated by the factfinder as an aggravating factor, either directly or to bolster a separate aggravating circumstance. Third, many mentally ill offenders who are sentenced to death will be so impaired at the time of execution that they can not emotionally appreciate the significance of their punishment and thus cannot be executed under the eighth amendment; the latter conclusion is required even if they are restorable through treatment, given the unethical and medically inappropriate role in which such treatment casts mental health professionals.
The New Death Penalty Bans: Can We Have it Both Ways?
In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the death penalty was not "cruel and unusual punishment" as defined under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Twelve years later, the high court ruled that the death penalty for people considered to have mental retardation also was not "cruel and unusual punishment."
At that time only two states that had the death penalty specifically banned execution of convicts who have mental retardation. As of this writing, 14 of the 38 states with a death penalty have ruled it out for inmates with mental retardation. Several other states are considering similar measures.
This is certainly good news for those inmates, their supporters, and people considered to have mental retardation that may be accused of capital crimes now or in the future. It is also good news for lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, jurors - and much of the American public -- who now have a relatively simple answer to a very complicated issue.
What does this mean for other people that have been labeled as having mental retardation or other disabilities but are law-abiding citizens?
I worry that the trend toward banning executions for this one group of people actually has the potential to set disability rights, particularly the self-advocacy movement, back a couple of decades. I am also concerned that the ways in which it is decided who lives and who dies is unfair and discriminatory.
Before going any further I need to explain that I oppose the death penalty and think it should be banned across the country. Perhaps, if a loved one of mine had died violently, I would feel differently, but as it is I can find no good reason to support it. Capital punishment is a barbaric practice for a society that considers itself "civilized."
It is also not given fairly. Minorities and people who grow up in poverty are executed much more often than whites and those who have money. As technology improves, we are seeing more and more cases where people who had been convicted and sentenced to death were later cleared through DNA tests, or from confessions from the real killers. We often read or hear about people who were "framed", or were with the "wrong bunch of people" at the wrong time.
The United States prides itself on fairness and justice and as Americans we feel particularly bad about executing innocent people. We also feel bad about executing people who commit a crime, but who might not have realized that what they did was wrong, did not understand the consequences of what they did, or who do not understand the legal system enough to defend themselves.
Defense attorneys are chosen and are given the moral, legal, and ethical obligation to defend their clients to the best of their ability. This means pleading their defendant¹s case before judges and juries. In recent cases, defenders have also appealed to state legislators, the public, the media and Supreme Court justices.
Some of the current and proposed laws simply use an IQ score to determine whether a defendant is competent. If the person scored below a certain number, they are not put on the executioner¹s list. In other states, defense attorneys have to work harder to prove that the accused has mental retardation and does not fully understand what they were doing or what the results of those actions would be.
This issue about competence gets us into trouble: The self-determination movement is based on the assumption that people are competent enough to guide their own lives, regardless of their label or "level" of disability. The "ban-the-death-penalty-for-the-mentally-retarded" movement is based on the assumption that people labeled as having mental retardation are not competent.
What happens when we try to have it both ways?
When a convict is considered to have mental retardation, defenders try to make the audience feel pity and guilt, by showing the person as helpless and child-like. After all, no judge or jury would want to give a lethal injection to a child. Missouri death row inmate Antonio Richardson is often referred to as "a 26-year-old man with the mind of a 6-year-old child". Convicted murderer John Penry is quoted as believing in Santa Claus and described as enjoying drawing stick figures with crayons. The focus on what the person cannot do in order to give the impression he cannot do anything, let alone kill somebody.
Efforts to rescue these convicts by showing them as stupid or childish strengthen the negative stereotypes that we have been trying to get rid of for so long. How can that possibly be a positive thing for, as an example, a 26-year-old woman with a label of "mild mental retardation", who is trying desperately to advocate for herself, to have some independence and control over her life? How can she convince those around her that she knows what is best for herself, if by association she is seen as a "child in an adult body"?
Another problem with singling out one group of people is that it reinforces the idea that people labeled as having mental retardation are "special" and ought to have "special" treatment. After decades of working toward equality, the bans on death sentences for one specific group further separate people from one another and widen the "Us versus Them" gap.
These new laws also reinforce the public perception that all a convict has to do to stay alive is "cheat" by pretending to have mental retardation or to be an underachiever during or before IQ testing. While this may rarely happen, recent news events where people have successfully faked having a disability have strengthened this idea. If ten men without disabilities can successfully win gold medals as members of Spain's "intellectually disabled" Paralympic basketball team, what might a person do to save his own life?
Some states choose the IQ test, or a battery of other "objective" standardized tests, because it is considered by many experts to be a fair and impartial tool to decide if the person has mental retardation. After all, outside the criminal justice system such tests have been used for millions of people to determine who would or would not be eligible for government benefits or services.
Usually, but not always, a person who scores at or below 70 is considered to have mental retardation. So in death penalty cases, a person scoring 68 lives, while a person scoring 72 dies. That can be hard to figure out for somebody like Oliver David Cruz who scored 63 on an IQ test one time and 76 another. (Incidentally, Cruz, a Texas death row inmate executed last August, was reported to have said that he would rather die than be called "retarded.")
There are two big problems with taking a tool designed to determine eligibility for services, and using it to decide if a person was competent enough to face the ultimate punishment.
One is that standardized testing is far from objective. Test scores can reflect the skills, attitudes or motives of the tester more than we would want to believe. I¹ve seen it myself. A simple nod here, or a smile or frown there from the person giving the test could make the difference of several points, whether the test-giver realizes it or not. Also, I have personally known of many cases where a professional admitted to deliberately "fudging" scores in order to help an adult or a child qualify for services.
Of course, defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges often bring in specialists who know how to administer such tests in a professional manner. But, to keep "cheating" at a minimum, many states require the "evidence" of whether the person has mental retardation to have been documented any time before he or she was 18 or 21. Does it make sense to base a life or death decision on, for example, a test done 25 years ago by an elementary school teacher who may have "fudged" a student¹s test score to show others how good a teacher she was?
Another problem is that even if these tests were objective, they could not determine whether the person was innocent or competent. My own experience has shown me that IQ scores are only good at telling how well a person does on IQ tests. Not much more, not much less.
I've known people that were labeled as being in the "severe level of mental disability" who were much more skilled at understanding human behavior than the PhDs administering the tests. I've also known so-called "geniuses" with IQ scores above 140 who did not understand the difference between right and wrong or the consequences of their actions. I don¹t know anybody who understands the criminal justice system.
There are countless examples of people labeled with mental retardation who have confessed to crimes they did not commit, who were represented by incompetent attorneys, who did not understand their rights under the legal system, or who were "framed" by others. However, there are countless examples of people without those labels who have experienced the same types of injustices.
So, while there is a death penalty, there do need to be safeguards in place within the legal system to keep people who have disabilities from being treated unfairly. And we do need to work toward there being a level playing field.
But to say those injustices happen because these convicts are incompetent, helpless and child-like, insults not only them, but also people with disabilities who are making good choices every day.
When we make "special" laws and say this person lives because of his "competency" score and this one dies because of his, we throw up more barriers for people who struggle to get others to recognize their abilities and the right to direct their own lives.
We can¹t have it both ways.
Discrimination is, after all, discrimination.
Edlyn D. Malang January 14, 2012
BSAC 2 8:30-9:30 TTHS PHILO 2 1. Construct a moral argument defending the governor’s action.
The decision of the governor is reasonable because there are people who might "cheat" by pretending to have mental retardation or to be an underachiever during or before IQ testing to stay alive. Although this may rarely happen, recent news events where people have successfully faked having a disability have strengthened this idea. We don’t know what a person might do to save his own life. There are a lot of people who are willing to do anything just to save their lives. Usually, but not always, a person who scores at or below 70 is considered to have mental retardation. So in death penalty cases, a person scoring 68 lives, while a person scoring 72 dies. That can be hard to figure out for somebody like Oliver David Cruz who scored 63 on an IQ test one time and 76 another. (Incidentally, Cruz, a Texas death row inmate executed last August, was reported to have said that he would rather die than be called "retarded.")
There are two big problems with taking a tool designed to determine eligibility for services, and using it to decide if a person was competent enough to face the ultimate punishment.
One is that standardized testing is far from objective. Test scores can reflect the skills, attitudes or motives of the tester more than we would want to believe. I¹ve seen it myself. A simple nod here, or a smile or frown there from the person giving the test could make the difference of several points, whether the test-giver realizes it or not. Also, I have personally known of many cases where a professional admitted to deliberately "fudging" scores in order to help an adult or a child qualify for services.
Of course, defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges often bring in specialists who know how to administer such tests in a professional manner. But, to keep "cheating" at a minimum, many states require the "evidence" of whether the person has mental retardation to have been documented any time before he or she was 18 or 21. Does it make sense to base a life or death decision on, for example, a test done 25 years ago by an elementary school teacher who may have "fudged" a student¹s test score to show others how good a teacher she was?
2. Construct an argument opposing the governor’s decision.
3. Do you agree with governor’s action?
I disagree with the governor’s action
Of course, defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges often bring in specialists who know how to administer such tests in a professional manner.
But, to keep "cheating" at a minimum, many states require the "evidence" of whether the person has mental retardation to have been documented any time before he or she was 18 or 21. Does it make sense to base a life or death decision on, for example, a test done 25 years ago by an elementary school teacher who may have "fudged" a student¹s test score to show others how good a teacher she was?
Another problem is that even if these tests were objective, they could not determine whether the person was innocent or competent. My own experience has shown me that IQ scores are only good at telling how well a person does on IQ tests. Not much more, not much less.
I've known people that were labeled as being in the "severe level of mental disability" who were much more skilled at understanding human behavior than the PhDs administering the tests. I've also known so-called "geniuses" with IQ scores above 140 who did not understand the difference between right and wrong or the consequences of their actions. I don¹t know anybody who understands the criminal justice
system.
There are countless examples of people labeled with mental retardation who have confessed to crimes they did not commit, who were represented by incompetent attorneys, who did not understand their rights under the legal system, or who were "framed" by others. However, there are countless examples of people without those labels who have experienced the same types of injustices.
So, while there is a death penalty, there do need to be safeguards in place within the legal system to keep people who have disabilities from being treated unfairly. And we do need to work toward there being a level playing field.
But to say those injustices happen because these convicts are incompetent, helpless and child-like, insults not only them, but also people with disabilities who are making good choices every day.
When we make "special" laws and say this person lives because of his "competency" score and this one dies because of his, we throw up more barriers for people who struggle to get others to recognize their abilities and the right to direct their own lives.
We can¹t have it both ways.