Capital Punishment and The Application of the Eight Amendment to the Mentally Retarded

Capital punishment is an issue that involves much controversy. One reason the principle is extremely debatable is because some believe that the people who receive the punishment are often undeserving, specifically, the mentally handicapped. Until the Atkins v. Virginia case in 2002 , execution of those deemed officially “mentally retarded,” or scoring below a 70 on an IQ test, was permitted. In Atkins v. VA, Daryl Atkins, who had an IQ of 59, was convicted of capital murder. This case served to overturn this application of execution on the basis that it violated one’s right to the Eight Amendment, which involves protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The Court reasoned that if one is not aware of the acts they are committing, the United States is only doing unnecessary damage in killing these people instead of rehabilitating them.

This sudden change in policy, however, differed greatly from the previous application. In 1989, the court ruled in Penry v. Lynaugh that sentencing a mentally retarded convict with capital punishment does not violate the Eighth Amendment because mental retardation should be a mitigating factor that the jury should reflect on when deciding punishment. Between the reimplementation of the death penalty in 1976, and the Atkins v. VA decision in 2002, 44 people that were considered mentally retarded had been sentenced with capital punishment. Also, in 1983 in the Earl Johnson case, mental health experts determined that if officials continually pester and interrogate one who is mentally handicapped, one is more likely to confess to committing a crime, even if this confession is false. This case is similar to that of the West Memphis Three and Jason Misskelley’s trial. It leads us to wonder if Jessie was really guilty or if, due to his IQ, he was merely trying to appease his interrogators.

The employment of the Eight Amendment into preventing the execution of the mentally retarded brings into question the entire principle of the death penalty. Is it wrong that the execution of the mentally retarded has just recently been ruled unconstitutional, or was the timing accurate in that it coincided with the evolving principles of decency of the United States Court System? Is the ruling valid which states that executing the mentally handicapped is unconstitutional, or should mental retardation be viewed as a mitigating factor, and the mentally handicapped be punished the same as everyone else? Of course, morally, one believes that the mentally retarded should not be held accountable for their actions, but if one were affected personally by a mentally retarded person’s actions, such as death to a family member, would one feel differently about application of capital punishment to those who have an IQ below 70?