Trials of the Mentally Retarded

The ways in which the justice system of the United States handles issues concerning the mentally ill deserve closer examination. Before the precedent set in Atkins v. Virginia case in 2002, the mentally retarded were subject to capital punishment. This procedure was often applied unfairly due to such factors as the mentally ill falsely confessing to crimes, and their little capability to aid their counsel in providing significant assistance. The process for determining the qualifications of being deemed “mentally retarded”, however, is controversial. One result of the Atkins v. VA case is that state and local courts are now responsible for implementing the banning of the mentally retarded; therefore, they must determine what constitutes one as mentally handicapped, another debatable issue. People also argue whether or not mental retardation should be determined before or after a trial, which also initiates argument.

The American Association on Mental Retardation describes the disability as “characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills.” The disability must originate before the age of 18 . According to the AAMR, this determinant, as well as scoring below 70 on an IQ test and having problems abiding in the everyday world are required for one to be considered mentally retarded. Due to the Atkins v. VA case, the courts now entrust the states to define their own interpretations of what is considered having a mental disability. This new provision leads to debate due to the variance in standards among states. In California, courts chose not to adopt the IQ score of 70 as being the clear decisive factor on mental retardation, where other states have set a definite number for interpretation. Many deem this method of setting a limit as too restrictive. In Idaho, one can not be considered mentally retarded if they exhibit an IQ of 71, one point above the limiting factor, even if they exhibit all other characteristics of mental disability. This instance brings about the issue where one could be considered mentally disable in one state; therefore, being spared from capital punishment. In another state, however, the interpretation could be applied oppositely, which could result in death. The United States needs to realize that through these varied ways of capital punishment application, many peoples' lives are more at stake in some states than others, which is not fair. This issue leads to further debate over which test is best suited to assess IQ. In the Vidal case in 2004, the courts ruled that the FSIQ test is the most suitable. Opponents of capital punishment believe that because there is no standard for accessing whether or not one is mentally handicapped, this method is arbitrary, and instigates debate. Advocates of the death penalty, however, argue that because Atkins. V. VA invested the interpretation of mental retardation into the power of the state and local courts, they hold the right to create policies of which seem fitting to their individual needs.

More debate arises in terms of mental retardation and execution once states decide on the process of determining whether or not one is mentally disable. Those who represent the mentally retarded advocate for this interpretation to be decided by an unbiased jury or judge before the trial takes place . Prosecutors in states that use the death penalty heavily, such as Virginia and Louisiana, favor determinacy to be conducted by those who found the defendant originally guilty of murder after the trial. Most states, however, employ pre-trial determination because it is less costly and less trying on family members due to the fact that prosecution for the death penalty does not have to occur. If a decision on mental retardation is made before the trial, it dismisses the possibility of the defendant being wrongfully convicted as a result of false confessions. People who support post-trial determination believe that a jury does not possess the certain level of expertise that can be gained through the procession of the trial. Usually, one’s stance on the pre-trial/post-trial issue derives from political position. Those who are in favor of the death penalty most commonly support post-trial determination, and those opposed prefer for mental retardation to be assessed before the trial begins.

The power of the state and local courts to be able to establish their own standards for determining mental retardation shows the way in which enforcement of the death penalty is beginning to decline. This establishment is arbitrary along with such factors of race, age, and demographics because it varies between states. The application of capital punishment is fluctuating due to the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment and to which cases it applies. Because the Eighth Amendment has already served to outlaw capital punishment in terms of juveniles and the mentally retarded, it brings up the issue of applying the amendment to all facets of consideration. Should Florida’s use of lethal injection in execution be deemed cruel and unusual punishment, and ultimately unconstitutional, under the Eighth Amendment? A correlation exists between those who see the death penalty as arbitrary and those who favor pre-trial determination, where these people tend to be opponents of capital punishment. One can note the same trend between those who believe individual states should be able to decide upon a policy that is appropriate to their needs and those who believe post-trial determination of mental retardation is most efficient, who usually are advocates of capital punishment. If such variation in administering the death penalty continues, states will continue to execute offenders on an unequal basis.