Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Legal to Execute Mentally Retarded
Is it Legal to Execute a Mentally Retarded Person?
In June 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled (6 to 3) that mentally retarded people cannot be executed. Thirteen years ago, a closely divided Court ruled that executing the retarded was not cruel and unusual punishment because only two states had barred the practice at that time, however at the time of the new ruling, eighteen states had banned the death penalty for the retarded, and that number combined with the twelve states that do not allow the death penalty at all, means that a majority of the states do not execute the retarded (Hansen; Siegel 2002). Justice John Paul Stevens observed that it is not the number of states, but rather the consistency of the direction of the change. Stevens noted, "a national consensus has developed against the practice...that executing the retarded has become unusual enough to be considered a violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment" (Hansen; Siegel 2002). Although most mentally retarded people know the difference between right and wrong, "the death penalty has been reserved for the most culpable of criminals, and it cannot be said that a person with the mental age of a child is among the most culpable," moreover, they are at particular risk for being wrongly convicted since they are of little help to their lawyers, are poor witnesses, often confess to crimes they did not commit, and Stevens notes, "their demeanor may create an unwarranted impression of lack of remorse for their crime" (Hansen; Siegel 2002). Thus, execution of the mentally retarded is not only illegal, but immoral as well. Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn of Amnesty International wants to expand this logic to include the mentally ill, stating, "Severely mentally ill people are not the worst of the worst" (Weigl 2006).
Works Cited
Hansen, Liane; Siegel, Robert. (2002 June 20). Analysis: Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded people who've committed crimes.
All Things Considered: National Public Radio. Retrieved December 10, 2006 from HighBeam Research Library.
Weigl, Andrea. (2006 November 12). Clemency sought for delusional murderer: The North Carolina inmate is part of a national debate on the executions of those with severe mental illness. News & Observer (Raleigh, NC). Retrieved December 10, 2006 from HighBeam Research Library.
Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) and Mentally Retarded In July 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded prisoners. This ruling reflects a shift in the Court's previous position, when it ruled in 1989 that such executions did not entail "cruel or unusual punishment" nor did they violate the Constitution's Eighth Amendment. Despite the ruling, however, the debate about the death penalty and mental retardation continues. Human rights
Support for this contention comes from the observation that male offenders too are comparatively lightly punished when domestic abuse is involved. Other factors, however, indicate greater complexity. Streib (1990), for instance, showed that confounding factors for deserving the death sentence include the offender's prior record for committing crimes; premeditation of the crime; and her potential for future violent crimes. Women are less likely to represent or possess these characteristics than
Specifically, Singleton's case was denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, and he was executed in Arkansas on January 6, 2004. As noted in the lower court's dissent: "Treating the prisoner may provide short-term relief but ultimately result in his execution, whereas leaving him untreated will condemn him to a world such as Singleton's, filled with disturbing delusions and hallucinations." Simply put: The Court found it in
For example, they should be required to complete at least 20 hours of training on brain disorders. It is ideal if consumers and family members become part of the activity and process. It must also be emphasized that, in most cases, dangerous or violent acts committed by persons with these brain disorders are the consequence of neglect, inappropriate or inadequate treatment of their illness (NAMI). The Alliance also contends that
Like many other of the court's death penalty cases, Roper was a close 5-4 decision of the nine justices (p. 58)." It is interesting to note that this decision by the Supreme Court concerning the death penalty and individuals under the age of 18 would be consistent with the public opinion today that would find outrageous taking the life of a teenager. In this matter, the Court takes away the
Does the criminal justice system discriminate? Provide support your position with reference to the various components of the process, and give an explanation for either why the system discriminates, or why it appears to discriminate. Yes, the criminal justice system discriminates. African-American males are overrepresented in every part of the criminal process, though there has been no good evidence to show that they actually engage in criminal behavior at rates