¶ … Execution of the Mentally Retarded: How the Law Was Changed
Jim Ellis a hero to some people. You can't say he got the law changed single-handedly, but without him and his strategy, it might never have happened. Ellis is a law professor at University of New Mexico and the former president of the American Association on Mental Retardation. He has worked for nearly 30 years on behalf of people with mental disabilities. He believed it was immoral and grossly unfair to execute people who are mentally retarded.
Ellis went from state to state where capital punishment exists, organizing the parents of mentally retarded children and adults. The parents, in turn, formed citizen lobbying groups and brought pressure to bear on the States to eliminate the death penalty for those who are mentally retarded. Ellis argued that "capital punishment is generally reserved for the 1% or 2% of murderers who deserve the most blame. Meanwhile ... people with mental retardation are in the bottom 2.5% of the human population in terms of intelligence" ((Fight the Death Penalty in the U.S.A. web site).
Ellis argued that the individual States should adopt standardized criteria for deciding whether or not an accused person is mentally retarded or deficient. In most states the issue is decided on the I.Q scores of the person, and usually 65 to 70 is where the line is drawn for retardation. Gradually, states that still have the death penalty, adopted standards for retardation and changed their laws. When these states were added to the states which do not have a death penalty at all, the balance tipped so that a majority of the states no longer apply a death penalty for mentally retarded people. "At the time of the decision, 12 states prohibited capital punishment altogether, while an additional 18 prohibited execution of the mentally retarded" (ACLU-NM News web site).
The Supreme Court then ruled in Atkins v. Virginia,...
Lynaugh "permitted the execution of mentally retarded capital offenders provided that judges and juries consider their mental capacities when deciding the sentence" (Reed, 1993). Mental retardation was viewed as a mitigating circumstance which juries could consider when deciding whether or not to inflict the death penalty. This seemed very unfair in light of the fact that mentally retarded people have diminished ability to make moral decisions, to reason things out, and to control their impulses.
Mental health experts state that because they want to please, mentally retarded people will sometimes falsely confess to
crimes. They don't want the
police to be "mad" at them. Studies have shown that their confessions are also suspect because they tend to be very suggestible and easily confused. Emory University professor Morgan Cloud who collaborated on a study, states: "They are more likely to go along, agree and comply with authority figures -- to say what the police want them to say -- than the general population." Another study in the University of Chicago Law Review found that 27% of disabled persons (retarded included) do not understand their Miranda rights, that confessions will be used against them in a Court of law, and that they can remain silent without penalty. Of all the disabled people who were studied, mentally retarded people were found to be most
vulnerable to psychological pressure and most likely to make "erroneous admissions during intense police interrogations" (Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty).
The American Bar Association issued a statement in 1989 condemning executions of the mentally retarded. They said such executions are unacceptable in a civilized society, whether the retarded person is guilty or not. Such executions were part of the reason for the ABA's call for a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty. But in 1989 Justice…
