Prohibiting Capital Punishment for People Identified with Mental Retardation: Protection or Discrimination?

Abstract

Controversy surrounding the execution of individuals identified with mental retardation has catapulted to the forefront of American society. This article examines this issue, reviewing the prominent literature that advocates or opposes a universal ban on the application of the death penalty to people labeled with mental retardation and offering the author's perspective on the matter. The author's discussion delineates the argument into two major concerns: The increased probability that a person with cognitive deficits may be unjustly convicted and sentenced because of certain characteristics of his or her disability, and the degree of blameworthiness of an offender who might have a lessened sense of personal responsibility. It is argued that because of the realities of the American legal and penal systems, the application of the death penalty to people with mental retardation must be banned, at least until each case can be examined thoroughly by individuals well informed about the manifestations of such cognitive limitations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkins v. Virginia, 00-8452 (2001).

Baroff

G. S.

(1991). Establishing mental retardation in capital cases: A potential matter of life and death. Mental Retardation, 99(6), 343–349.

Brief of American Association on Mental Retardation et al. as amici curiae in support of petitioner John Paul Penry, petitioner, v. James A. Lynaugh, director, Texas department of corrections, respondent. (1988, October) No. 87-6177, U.S. Supreme Court.

Bonner

(2001, June 18). Ban on execution of the retarded is vetoed in Texas. The New York Times, p. A1.

Bonner

Fessenden

(2000, September 22). Absence of executions. The New York Times, p. A1.

Bonner

Rimer

(2000, August 7). Executing the mentally retarded even as laws begin to shift. The New York Times, p. A1.

Calnen

Blackman

L. S.

(1992). Capital punishment and offenders with mental retardation: Response to the Penry brief. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(6), 557–564.

Conley

R. W.

Luckasson

Bouthlet

G. N.

(Eds.) (1992). The criminal justice system and mental retardation: Defendants and victims. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Davis

L. A.

(2000). People with mental retardation in the criminal justice system. The Arc. Retrieved April 16, 2001 from www.thearc.org.

10.

Death penalty facts. (2001). Amnesty International USA. Retrieved from www.amnesty-usa.org/abolish/mentalreaandill.html.

11.

Edgarton

R. B.

(1992). On responsibility. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(6), 566–567.

12.

Enmund v. Florida, 102 S. Ct. 3368 (1982).

13.

Field

M. A.

(1992). Executing defendants with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(6), 567–570.

14.

Greenhouse

(2001, 27 March). Justices to review issue of executing retarded killers. The New York Times, p. A1.

15.

Keyes

Edwards

Perske

(1997). People with mental retardation are dying, legally. Mental Retardation, 35(1), 59–63.

16.

Koppel

(2000, September 14). Crime and punishment: A matter of life and death. ABC news nightline. [Television broadcast]. New York: ABC.

17.

Luckasson

(1988). In law and policy: AAMR legislative and social goals: 1988–1989. Mental Retardation, 26(4), 231–233.

18.

McAfee

J. K.

Gural

(1988). Individuals with mental retardation and the criminal justice system: The view from states' attorneys general. Mental Retardation, 26(1), 5–12.

19.

Mish

(Ed.). (1989). Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster.

20.

Penry v. Johnson, 00–6677 (2001).

21.

Penry v. Lynaugh, 109 S. Ct. 2934 (1989).

22.

Perske

(1996). The battle for Richard LaPointe's Life. Mental Retardation, 35(5), 323–327.

23.

TASH resolution opposing execution of persons labeled as having mental retardation. (2002). TASH. Retrieved January 2, 2002 from www.tash.org/resolutions/res02execution.htm.

24.

Tison v. Arizona, 107 S. Ct. 1676 (1987).

25.

Woodson v. North Carolina, 96 S. Ct. 2978 (1976).