Synonyms

Mental retardation defense

Historical Background

Daryl Atkins and William Jones abducted Eric Nesbitt from a convenience store, and after finding only $60 in his wallet, Atkins and Jones used Nesbitt’s vehicle to drive to an ATM and forced him to withdraw $200. Thereafter, Atkins and Jones drove Nesbitt to an isolated location where he was shot eight times and subsequently died. Atkins and Jones were quickly tracked down by police, and in custody, it was determined that Jones’ story claiming that Atkins pulled the trigger was more coherent than Atkins’ story implicating Jones as the shooter. Thus, Atkins was charged and convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. This took place despite the results of an IQ test completed by a clinical psychologist, in which Atkins’ score of 59 placed him in the mildly mentally retarded range. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to death.

The Supreme Court of Virginia was in agreement with the judgment of the trial court, and the appeal was taken to the US Supreme Court. In July of 2002, the US Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and the Supreme Court of Virginia and referred the case back to the sentencing court to render a sentence other than the death penalty. The US Supreme Court ruled that the punishment was excessive and thus prohibited by the eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual if it is not “graduated and proportioned to the offense.” An excessive judgment is judged by current societal standards. Thus, society’s standards of decency, albeit subject to change, must prove that they are influenced by “objective factors to the maximum possible extent.” Furthermore, it was ruled that mental retardation does not preclude a person’s capability to discriminate right from wrong, though mental retardation does lead to a diminished capacities to process and comprehend information, reduces communication abilities, and decreases one’s ability to learn from mistakes and experiences, reason logically, inhibit impulses, and understand the emotions and behaviors of others. The US Supreme Court concluded that mentally retarded individuals are not exempt from criminal sanctions, though a decrease in personal culpability is warranted. Thus, due to the conclusions that the purposes of retribution and deterrence are not accomplished in the execution of mentally retarded individuals, coupled with the increased risk that the death penalty will be imposed erroneously, the US Supreme Court ruled that the eighth Amendment precludes execution of mentally retarded persons.

Despite the court’s ruling, in July of 2005, a Virginia jury determined that Atkins was intelligent enough to be executed due to the fact that another IQ score had been recorded at above 70. Moreover, the prosecution claimed that his poor performance in school was related to use of alcohol and drugs and that earlier assessments of his IQ were “tainted.” Thus, Atkins was set to be executed on 2 December 2005. However, the decision was recently reversed again by the Virginia Supreme Court, as a result of state procedural grounds.

Current Knowledge

Forensic psychological and neuropsychological assessments of mentally retarded individuals being considered for the death penalty are highly important. Specifically, the US Supreme Court did not specify the degree of mental retardation required to circumvent the death penalty and instead left such determinations up to the discretion of the states. It is important to note that subaverage intelligence alone does not warrant a label of mental retardation. Impairments in adaptive functioning and evidence of mental retardation prior to the age of 18 years are needed for a diagnostic determination of mental retardation.

Cross-References