Document: 536 U.S. 304 ATKINSv.VIRGINIA. No. 00-8452. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued February 20, 2002. Decided June CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA Petitioner Atkins was convicted capital murder and related crimes by a Virginia jury sentenced to death. Affirming, relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be death because is mentally retarded. Held: Executions retarded criminals are "cruel unusual punishments" prohibited Eighth Amendment. Pp. 311-321. (a) A punishment "excessive," therefore Amendment, if it graduated proportioned offense. E. g., Weems States, 217 349, 367. An excessiveness claim judged currently prevailing standards decency. Trop Dulles, 356 86, 100-101. Proportionality review under such evolving should informed objective factors maximum possible extent, see, e. Harmelin Michigan, 501 957, 1000, clearest most reliable which legislation enacted country's legislatures, Penry, S., at 331. In addition evidence, Constitution contemplates this will bring its own judgment bear asking whether there reason agree or disagree with reached citizenry legislators, Coker Georgia, 433 584, 597. 311-313. (b) Much has changed since Penry's conclusion two state statutes then existing executions, even when added 14 States had rejected completely, did provide sufficient evidence consensus. 334. Subsequently, significant number have concluded suitable for criminal, similar bills passed least one house other It so much these significant, but consistency direction change. Given anticrime far more popular than protecting violent criminals, large prohibiting execution persons (and complete absence reinstating executions) provides powerful today society views offenders as categorically less culpable average criminal. The carries greater force noted legislatures addressing issue voted overwhelmingly favor prohibition. Moreover, allowing offenders, practice uncommon. 313-317. (c) independent evaluation reveals no legislative Clinical definitions mental retardation require only subaverage intellectual functioning, also limitations adaptive skills. Mentally frequently know difference between right wrong competent stand trial, but, definition, they diminished capacities understand process information, communicate, abstract from mistakes learn experience, engage logical reasoning, control impulses, others' reactions. Their deficiencies do warrant an exemption criminal sanctions, diminish their personal culpability. light deficiencies, Court's penalty jurisprudence reasons First, serious question either justification underpinning — retribution deterrence applies offenders. As retribution, severity appropriate necessarily depends offender's If culpability murderer insufficient justify imposition death, see Godfrey 446 420, 433, lesser offender surely does merit form retribution. deterrence, same cognitive behavioral impairments make defendants morally likely can information possibility and, result, conduct based upon information. Nor exempting lessen penalty's deterrent effect respect who Second, aggregate face special risk wrongful unwittingly confess commit, ability give counsel meaningful assistance, facts typically poor witnesses demeanor may create unwarranted impression lack remorse crimes. 317-321. 260 Va. 375, 534 2d 312, reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. filed dissenting opinion, SCALIA THOMAS, joined, post, p. 321. SCALIA, 337. James W. Ellis argued cause petitioner. With him briefs were Robert Lee, appointment 1122, Mark Olive, Charles Haden. Pamela A. Rumpz, Assistant Attorney General Virginia, respondent. her brief Randolph Beales, General.* JUSTICE STEVENS Court. 1 Those meet law's requirements responsibility tried punished commit Because disabilities areas judgment, however, act level moral characterizes adult conduct. jeopardize reliability fairness proceedings against defendants. Presumably reasons, 13 years we decided 302 (1989), American public, scholars, judges deliberated over ever imposed consensus reflected those deliberations informs our answer presented case: executions Amendment Federal Constitution. 2 * Petitioner, Daryl Renard Atkins, abduction, armed robbery, murder, At approximately midnight August 16, 1996, William Jones, semiautomatic handgun, abducted Eric Nesbitt, robbed money his person, drove automated teller machine pickup truck where cameras recorded withdrawal additional cash, took isolated location shot eight times killed. 3 Jones both testified guilt phase trial.1 Each confirmed details other's account incident, important exception each stated actually killed Nesbitt. Jones' testimony, coherent credible Atkins', obviously credited establish guilt.2 State introduced victim impact proved aggravating circumstances: future dangerousness "vileness offense." To prove dangerousness, prior felony convictions well testimony four victims earlier robberies assaults. second aggravator, prosecution trial record, including pictures deceased's body autopsy report. 4 phase, defense witness, Dr. Evan Nelson, forensic psychologist evaluated before "mildly retarded."3 His interviews people knew Atkins,4 school court records, administration standard intelligence test indicated full scale IQ 59.5 5 ordered sentencing hearing used misleading verdict form. 257 160, 510 445 (1999). resentencing, Nelson again testified. expert rebuttal Stanton Samenow, expressed retarded, rather "average intelligence, least," diagnosable having antisocial personality disorder.6 App. 476. 6 affirmed penalty. 385, 318 (2000). argue sentence disproportionate penalties contend "that thus cannot death." Id., 386, 2d, 318. majority contention, relying holding Penry. Va., 387, 319. "not willing commute life imprisonment merely score." 390, 7 Justice Hassell Koontz dissented. They Samenow's possesses "incredulous matter law," "the defendant age child ages 9 12 excessive." 394, 395-396, 323-324. "it indefensible conclude individuals some degree acts. By substantial shared general population. civilized diminishes itself system justice afford recognition consideration way." 397, 325. 8 gravity concerns dissenters, dramatic shift landscape occurred past years, granted certiorari revisit first addressed case. 533 976 (2001). II succinctly prohibits "[e]xcessive" sanctions. provides: "Excessive bail shall required, nor excessive fines imposed, cruel punishments inflicted." 349 (1910), held jailed irons hard painful labor crime falsifying records excessive. We explained precept [the] repeatedly applied proportionality later cases interpreting See 997-998 (1991) (KENNEDY, concurring part judgment); id., 1009-1011 (White, dissenting).7 Thus, though "imprisonment ninety days not, abstract, unusual," `status' narcotic addiction," Robinson California, 370 660, 666-667 (1962), sanction would Stewart Robinson: "Even day prison `crime' common cold." 667. 10 prevailed 1685 Lord Jeffreys presided "Bloody Assizes" Bill Rights adopted, prevail. Chief Warren 86 (1958): "The basic concept underlying nothing dignity man.... must draw meaning decency mark progress maturing society." 11 "`objective extent,'" Harmelin, 1000 (quoting Rummel Estelle, 263, 274-275 (1980)). pinpointed "clearest contemporary values legislatures." Relying impermissibly rape woman, 593-596 (1977), neither life, attempted take intended Enmund Florida, 458 782, 789-793 (1982). Coker, focused primarily then-recent been response decision Furman 408 238 (1972) (per curiam), support "current judgment," wholly unanimous," weighed very heavily side "suitable raping woman." 596. judgment" relevant clear "nevertheless weigh[ed] issue." Enmund, 793. acknowledged great importance, "wholly determine" controversy, "for end brought acceptability Amendment." For example, expressing about issue: "For purposes imposing penalty, Enmund's limited participation tailored guilt. Putting avenge killings intention committing causing measurably contribute retributive ensuring gets just deserts. This recently matter, construing applying 801 (emphasis added). involving consensus, "brought bear," 597, legislators. 15 Guided approach cases, suitability consider agreeing disagreeing judgment. III 16 parties called attention any 1986. year, public reaction Georgia8 apparently led enactment statute executions.9 1988, Congress federal expressly provided "sentence carried out person retarded."10 1989, Maryland prohibition.11 year enactments, "even present national consensus." 17 then. Responding received Bowden across country began address issue. 1990, Kentucky Tennessee Georgia Maryland, New Mexico 1991, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington, Indiana, Kansas 1993 1994.12 1995, York reinstated emulated Government retarded.13 Nebraska followed suit 1998.14 There appear enactments during next 2000 2001 six South Dakota, Arizona, Connecticut, Missouri, North Carolina joined procession.15 Texas Legislature unanimously adopted bill,16 Nevada.17 18 change.18 well-known fact providing protections guilty crime, passing power prohibition.19 allow Some example Hampshire Jersey, continue authorize none decades. Thus little need pursue barring And appears among regularly execute prohibition regard five executed possessing known 70 Penry.20 practice, therefore, become truly unusual, fair say developed it.21 19 extent disagreement determining case, instance, Commonwealth disputes suffers retardation. Not all impaired fall within range whom Ford Wainwright, 477 399 (1986), insanity, "we leave State[s] task developing ways enforce constitutional restriction [their] sentences." 405, 416-417.22 IV 20 unquestionably reflects widespread relative relationship penological served Additionally, suggests characteristics undermine strength procedural steadfastly guards. 21 discussed above, clinical skills communication, self-care, self-direction became manifest 18. trial. impairments, definition reactions others.23 others, abundant often impulse pursuant premeditated plan, group settings followers leaders.24 22 consistent excluded execution. recognized basis Gregg 428 153, 183 (1976) (joint Stewart, Powell, JJ.), identified "retribution prospective offenders" social Unless "measurably contributes goals, `is purposeless needless pain suffering,' hence unconstitutional punishment." 798. 23 interest seeing "just deserts" offender. Since Gregg, consistently confined narrow category 420 (1980), set aside petitioner's reflect "a consciousness materially `depraved' murder." 433. extreme available State, narrowing jurisprudence, seeks ensure deserving put exclusion appropriate. 24 preventing seems `capital serve result premeditation deliberation,'" 799. Exempting affect "cold calculus precedes decision" potential murderers. 186. Indeed, sort opposite spectrum behavior theory predicated notion increased inhibit actors carrying murderous Yet impulses Such unprotected threat executing further goal deterrence. 25 reduced capacity categorical rule making ineligible spite call severe penalty," Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 605 (1978), enhanced, false confessions,25 persuasive showing mitigation prosecutorial factors. able assistance witnesses, demonstrated, moreover, reliance mitigating factor two-edged sword enhance likelihood found jury. 323-325. 26 Our have"to matter" persuaded advance purpose Construing "evolving decency," "places substantive State's life" Ford, 405. 27 reversed, case remanded inconsistent opinion. 28 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging affirmance Alabama et al. Pryor, Alabama, J. Clayton Crenshaw, Henry M. Johnson, R. Houts, Vernon Barnett IV, Michael B. Billingsley, David Clark, Attorneys General, Moore, Mississippi, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada, Condon, Carolina, L. Shurtleff, Utah; Criminal Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger Hobson. [REPORTER'S NOTE: On December 3, 2001, 1053, motion amici filers McCarver 00-8727, cert. dism'd, 975, considered petitioner Association Mental Retardation Ellis, April Land, Christian G. Fritz, Browde, Stanley Herr; Bar Martha Gossett; Civil Liberties Union Larry Yackle, Bryan Stevenson, Steven Shapiro, Diann Y. Rust-Tierney; Psychological Paul Smith, Hohengarten, Nathalie F. P. Gilfoyle, McHugh, Richard Taranto; European Wilson; Catholic Conference Chopko, Jeffrey Hunter Moon, Moses; Morton Abramowitz Harold Hongju Koh Herr.] Initially, indicted murder. ultimately permitted plead first-degree exchange Atkins. plea, receive Highly damaging credibility inconsistency statement gave police arrest. contrast, declined initial authorities (AAMR) defines follows: "Mental refers functioning. characterized significantly concurrently following applicable skill areas: home living, skills, community use, self-direction, health safety, functional academics, leisure, work. manifests 18." Retardation: Definition, Classification, Systems Supports (9th ed. 1992). Psychiatric Association's similar: essential feature functioning (Criterion A) accompanied social/interpersonal use resources, academic work, health, safety B). onset occur C). many different etiologies seen final pathway various pathological processes central nervous system." Diagnostic Statistical Manual Disorders 41 (4th 2000). "Mild" describe 50-55 70. 42-43. doctor interviewed members family, deputies jail incarcerated preceding months. reviewed statements given investigative reports concerning administered Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS-III), instrument assessing AAMR, Retardation,supra. WAIS-III scored adding together points earned subtests, using mathematical formula convert raw score into scaled score. measures 45 155. mean 100, means receiving 100 Kaufman & Lichtenberger, Essentials Assessment 60 estimated percent population 75 lower, cutoff function prong definition. Kaplan Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook Psychiatry 2952 (B. Sadock V. eds. 7th testified: "[Atkins'] 59. Compared large, percentile.... relatively rare thing. It's population." 274. According "would automatically qualify Social Security disability income." 280. 40 evaluated, individual met criteria 310. He that, intellect throughout 59 "aberration, malingered invalid 308. correctional staff. administer test, ask questions taken 1972 version Memory ScaleId., 524-525, 529. Samenow attributed "academic performance [that was] terrible" "is chose pay sometimes, poorly want what required do." 480-481. read text prohibit punishments, Jerome Bowden, old, scheduled imminent Board Pardons Paroles stay protests selected determined 65, Nevertheless, board lifted day. understood nature execution, despite permissible. Montgomery, Bowden's Execution Stirs Protest, Atlanta Journal, Oct. 13, 1986, A1 Ga. Code Ann. § 17-7-131(j) (Supp. 1988) Anti-Drug Abuse Act Pub. 100-690, 7001(l), 102 Stat. 4390, 848(l). expanded law 1994. included provision being executed. Death Penalty 1994, 3596(c). Md. Code, Art. 27, 412(f)(1) (1989) Ky. Rev. §§ 532.130, 532.135, 532.140; Tenn. 39-13-203; N. 31-20A-2.1; Ark. 5-4-618; Colo. 16-9-401; Wash. 10.95.030; Ind. 35-36-9-2 through 35-36-9-6; Kan. 21-4623 Crim. Proc. Law 400.27. However, "may ... ground retarded" killing while custody facility local institution." 400.27.12(d) (McKinney 2001-2002 Interim Pocket Part) Neb. 28-105.01 D. Codified Laws 23A-27A-26.1; Ariz. 13-703.02; Conn. Gen. 53a-46a; Fla. 921.137; Mo. 565.030; 2001-346 Sess. House 236 24, Senate version, 686, May 2001. Governor Perry vetoed 17, veto statement, express dissatisfaction principle excluding fact, stated: "We murderers today." Veto Proclamation H. 236. Instead, motivation bill perceived flaw: "My opposition focuses legal flaw bill. whereby judge asked determination sets facts.... Also grave concern up legally flawed never process."Ibid. 497 (2002); 957 Nevada Assembly 353 Furthermore, commission Illinois recommended adopt Report Governor's Commission Capital Punishment 156 (Apr. 2002) comparison toStanford Kentucky, 361 juvenile 15, telling. Although Stanford raised threshold Mont. 45-5-102 (1999); 35-50-2-3 (1998). D Brief AAMR asAmici Curiae. Texas, Louisiana, Virginia. Keyes, Edwards, Perske, People Dying Legally, 35 (Feb. 1997) (updated Information Center, http://www.advocacyone.org/deathpenalty.html (as visited 18, 2002)) Additional makes broader professional several organizations germane expertise official positions opposing Curiae; Amici addition, representatives widely diverse religious communities reflecting Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist traditions, amicus explaining differ, "share conviction justified." Curiae 2. world community, committed disapproved. Amicus 4. Finally, polling data shows Americans, wrong. Bonner Rimer, Executing Retarded Even Begin Shift, Times, Aug. 7, 2000, A1; B (appending polls issue). dispositive, lends Thompson Oklahoma, 487 815, 830, 831, n. 31 (1988) (considering "respected organizations, nations share Anglo-American heritage, leading Western community"). statutory identical, generally conform forth 3,supra. McGee Menolascino, Evaluation Defendants System, System 55, 58-60 (R. Conley, Luckasson, Bouthilet 1992); Appelbaum Appelbaum, Criminal-Justice Related Competencies Retardation, 483, 487-489 (Winter 1994) See,e. Defendants, 53 Geo. 414, 429 (1985); Levy-Shiff, Kedem, Sevillia, Ego Identity Adolescents, 94 Am. 541, 547 (1990); Whitman, Self Regulation 347, 360 Everington Fulero, Competence Confess: Measuring Understanding Suggestibility 37 212, 212-213, 535 (1999) (hereinafter Fulero). Fulero 212-213. Despite heavy burden shoulder ignore recent disturbing inmates row exonerated. These exonerations confessed commit. Baker, Death-Row Inmate Gets Clemency; Agreement Ends Day Suspense, Washington Post, Jan. 29 CHIEF Thomas join, dissenting. 30 deprives impose like petitioner, i. e., indisputably aware suffer why, whose insufficiently compelling crime. pronounces laws limiting eligibility certain alone, besides proper individuated juries familiar particular ante, 314-315. I 337-338 (dissenting opinion), assessment current regarding resembles post hoc rationalization majority's subjectively preferred effort ascertain content write separately, defects place weight foreign laws, reaching conclusion. 316-317, 21. suggestion sources finds precedents my view, antithetical considerations federalism, instruct "permanent units democratic government [be apparent] operative acts (laws application laws) approved." 361, 377 (plurality opinion). uncritical acceptance poll attention, warrants comment, surveys conducted accordance accepted scientific principles capable supporting valid empirical inferences us. 32 determinations unusual" embraced emphasized values." 331 (1989). McCleskey Kemp, 481 279, 300 (1987). ascribe primacy follows role play policy State. "`[I]n courts, constituted respond consequently people.'" 175-176 JJ.) 238, 383 (Burger, dissenting)). specifications "peculiarly policy," Gore 357 393 (1958), cautioned "`the aegis Cruel Unusual Clause'" cut off normal processes, supra, 176 Powell 392 514, (1968) opinion)). 33 opinions actions juries, entitled judgments, "`is index values,'" 596 (1977) opinion) 181), jury's intimate involvement "`maintain[ing] link penal system,'" 181 Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510, 519, (1968)). 596-597, "at 10" convictions. 793-794 (1982), (but " as"compelling here), "overwhelming [evidence] repudiated penalty" life. 34 work product ought sole indicators courts conceptions indicia firmly supported precedents. More importantly, reconciled undeniable precepts branches are, design, better suited evaluating giving complex societal inform selection publicly acceptable punishments. today, notice adduced comprehensive statistics conclusively (or disprove) routinely petitioner.* adverts countries disapproved (citing 2). fail ever, how citizens ultimate determination. While true climate international"prior looked opinion," 596, 10, reinforce decency, 830 opinion); 796-797, 22; 102-103 (1958) explicitly idea practices "serve prerequisite, [a] people." Stanford, 369, (emphasizing "American dispositive" original)). 36 Stanford's reasoning perfectly good sense, offers it. looking, viewpoints simply relevant. Thompson, otherwise. rely bare citation international plurality authority deem countries' choices germane. But representing view minority offered explanation citation, resurrect sound rejection argument Stanford. buttress appraisal values, marshals results groups noting "representatives traditions `share justified'"; stating "polling Americans wrong"). accorded elected populace deemed them enough prompt action. 334-335, cited "public sentiment [them]" yet find expression law. (refusing invitation rest uncertain foundations" polls, groups, associations"). serves illustrate willingness proscribe judicial fiat behest private speaking themselves across-the-board workings laboratories 38 accept legitimacy reach beyond discern blind-faith credence accords attention. extensive science literature describes methodological errors validity estimates attitudes derived sampling techniques. Everything variations survey methodology, choice target population, design used, asked, statistical analyses interpret skew results. See, Groves, Survey Errors Costs (1989); Turner Martin, Surveying Subjective Phenomena (1984). 39 Judicial Center's Reference Scientific Evidence 221-271 (1994) Complex Litigation 21.493, pp. 101-103 (3d 1995), offer helpful suggestions assess admissibility factual court. Looking (reproduced Appendix factors, help observe unlikely inference reported designed gauge respondents might cases. Most (e. "Do you think penalty?"), such, elicit respondent associated regardless impairment circumstances disclose targeted techniques research. accepts instruments adequately question, impossible sample representative methodology sufficiently tell us anything large. indicate why or, few whom, objectivity order here, sponsors examined cross-examined matters. strong inquiry constitutes America. Here, goes well-established values. "further [its] conclusion" demonstrated reliable. Ante, 317, Believing seriously mistaken, dissent. 42 APPENDIX OPINION 43 Poll 3a-7a, 21: 44 STATE POLL DATE RESPONSE QUESTION AR Arkansans' 1992 61% "Some Opinion Penalty, 17% 5% opposed Research Associates, Inc., undecided Others Q. (July 1992) John DiPippa, Will Fairchild's Violate Constitution, Which Simply comes Morality?, closest your Arkansas own?" Forum, Sept. AZ Behavior 71% oppose 12% 11% 6% ref/unsure 2000) retarded?" CA Field 1989 64.8% feel Corp., California 25.7% Survey, (Dec. 1989) 9.5% Frank Hill, depending circumstances. Retarded, San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 28, 1993, G3 circumstance. ...?" 1997 74% "Mentally 9% 62D crimes." Van Slambrouck, Convict's Science Monitor, Apr. 1998, CT Quinnipac 77% University yes 46 Polling don't Institute, Info., 23, 2001) penalty?" FL Amnesty 1986 [not provided] International Martin Dyckman, Penalty's High Price, St. Petersburg 19, 1992, 3D GA 1987 66% 16% Tracy Opposed, 6, 1987, 1B LA Marketing 77.7% "Would vote Inst., 9.2% Loyola 13% 1993) Louisiana Poll, 68% believe 104, 19% people, 2% won't executed?" MD 1988 82% 8% 10% she (Nov. 47 MO Missouri 61.3% 23.7% (Oct. 15% Do IS NOT person?" NC/SC Charlotte 64% "Should Observer-WMTV 21% Carolinas ban News 14% sure (Sept. retardation?" Diane Suchetka, Join Emotional Debate Over Observer, NM 1990 57.1% 62% Use 10.5% 26.2% Asked Public 6.1% it, 1990) 48 NY Patrick Caddell "I'd Enterprises, imagine member Penalty: Executive Summary, reasonable doubt (May now needs decide Ronald Tabak sentencing. You Lane, last juror Injustice: Cost determine Lack-of-Benefit Analysis (LA) Would 59, 93 OK 1999 83.5% Oklahoma Attitudes Regarding 10.8% Punishment: 5.7% Conducted years) Other Indigent Defense `retarded' C 1999) subject anyone else. closer 49 way feel, executed, everyone else?" TX Austin 73% Statesman, Nov. B3 Sam Houston 1995 items University, College people's attitude Justice, please Crime On-line (1995) Domingo Ramirez, Jr., wouldn't Murder Trial Hinge severely Defendant's IQ, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1997, Scripps-Howard Poll: (Mar. know/no inmate Dan Parker, Texans Support Corpus Christi Caller-Times, 2, 50 59.9% Chronicle 19.3% convinced 20.7% sure/ Stephen guilty, Brewer Mike Tolson, impaired?" Deadly Distinction: Part III, Fervent Cases, Johnny Illustrates Lingering Conundrum, Chronicle, Feb. A6 US Harris Unfinished Agenda Race, 4% 3% `retarded') Saundra Torry, refused Hear Case Slayer, 11, 51 Yankelovich Clancy Shulman, 27% Time/CNN crimes, Samuel murder?" Gross, Second Thoughts: Americans' Views Turn Century, Future Tarrance 56% Group, 32% unsure Update: Getting Personal, 83 Cornell 1448, 1467 (1998) Policy 67% item Research, me America, 7% 72 1995) 26% 52 Princeton 83% "If Newsweek 1468 Peter Hart 58% strongly/ "... [F]or somewhat proposal read, Innocence strongly favor, mixed/ mixed neutral feelings, oppose, .... [P]rohibit retarded." 72% much/ "Suppose "Now time 47% sentence. 25% otherwise way, specific likely, you?" 63.8% 16.4% 19.8% 54 [DS] THOMAS Apparently exist. (noting "actions prosecutors difficult quantify precision"). Petitioner's inability muster studies him, "heavy burden," 373 (internal quotation marks omitted), him. worth experts A1, reluctant 584 782 55 Today's pinnacle death-is-different jurisprudence. history Amendment; conditions render inappropriate. Seldom rested Members. 56 begin restatement abridged understanding After spending drinking alcohol smoking marijuana, partner convenience store, intending rob customer. airman Langley Air Force Base, abducted, nearby machine, forced withdraw $200. deserted area, ignoring pleas unharmed. co-conspirator, evidently credited, Nesbitt vehicle after steps, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, thorax, chest, abdomen, arms, legs. 57 resentencing (the improper form, 179, 445, 457 (1999)), heard alleged mildly "slow learner," 444, showed "lack success pretty every domain life," 442, "impaired" appreciate criminality law, 453. family "follower," 421). contested "absolutely indicating [petitioner] bit "of least." 58 firearm, maiming. 491-522. offenses graphic depictions tendencies: hit head beer bottle, 406; slapped gun another victim's face, clubbed knocked ground, helped up, shoot stomach, 411-413. 312 foregoing demonstrates, concluded, exempt brutality long propensity violence. "In upsetting particularized absolute," concludes slightly "moral subjected sociological implausible; doubly implausible interpretation Constitution." 863-864 (SCALIA, dissenting). Under falls categories: "those modes adopted," 399, 405 modern "`standards decency,'" evinced indicia, "legislation legislatures," 330-331 61 pretense 1791. Only profoundly commonly "idiots," enjoyed status time. They, lunatics, suffered "deficiency will" rendering unable Blackstone, Commentaries England (1769) Blackstone); 331-332 ("[T]he term `idiot' total understanding, distinguish evil"); 333 idiots below, "profound" "severe" standards); Fitz-Herbert, Natura Brevium 233B 1794) (originally published 1534) (An idiot "such twenty pence, father mother, old is, etc., hath profit, loss"). Due incompetence, "excuse[d] guilt, course punishment, action deprivation senses." Blackstone 25; civil confinement made wards thereby "go[ing] loose, terror king's subjects." Brakel, Parry, Weiner, Disabled 12-14 1985); 292-296; Hale, Pleas Crown (1st 1847). "idiots" punishment. I. Ray, Medical Jurisprudence Insanity 87-92 (W. Overholser 1962) (recounting 1834 Concord, Hampshire, apparent "imbecile" imbecility "differs idiocy circumstance [the idiot] utter destitution thing reason, [imbeciles] possess capacity, infinitely possessed mass mankind"); Highmore, Idiocy Lunacy 200 (1807) ("The difficulty said deprived sense memory imputed him: notwithstanding kind still accountable ..."). 62 left argue, 101 (Warren, J.). Before judgments existence "standards" "should extent" be, subjective Justices." 592 369 (1987); 788 "First" "statutes society's representatives," 370; "will rarely Members evolution 865 63 pays lipservice miraculously extracts "national consensus" forbidding 316, half (47%) permit (for exists) figure distorted one. say, repugnant violate "standards "consensus" righteous executions. 18% jurisdictions scope. Eleven counts after, effective date legislation;1 already row, consigned statute's date, (in criterion retroactivity) murders ago, That absolute repugnance, preference tolerable approaches. Two situations well: permits except retarded;2 facility. 2001); Penal 125.27 2002). 64 let accept, sake argument, faulty count. alone convince exists. How agreement amounts "consensus"? higher finding standards" grounds. 595-596, proscribed woman jurisdiction, authorized 789, invalidated mere robbery accomplice (78%). 408, common-law insane observation "[t]his ancestral legacy outlived time," single authorizes Solem Helm, 463 277, (1983), without parole recidivist "was treated State." What calls (a fudged 47%) closely inadequate Tison 137, 154, 158 (1987), upheld authorizing major reckless indifference (30%) 372, permitting (42%) 65 entirely disregards relies infancy. oldest old;3 year;4 years.5 Few, any, experience sensible term. "myopic base sweeping [a few] years." 614 dissenting); 854-855 (O'CONNOR, judgment). 66 attempts bolster embarrassingly feeble following: "It change." 315 possibly change? ago change (except precipitate undoing done) bound overcome real accurate "consistency-of-the-direction-of-change" point recast unimpressive observation: "No undone whole event, "trends," longer duration perilous adjudication, O'CONNOR eloquently Thompson: 67 1846, Michigan abolish succeeding decades, continued trend towards abolition Later, particularly World War II, ensued steady decline 1950's 1960's, abolished radically restricted ceased completely beginning 1968.... 68 1972, arguments constitutionality suggested relic, implicitly new consensus.... mistaken. declared outlawed revive mistaken premise frozen refute reject." 854-855. 69 Her words demonstrate, course, peril riding trend, discerning none. thrashing includes margins bans 316. Presumably, "evolving-standards-of-decency" henceforth weigh agreed, agreed much. Of percentage legislators voting represented significant: 49% million impressive 90% (By exclude 44% Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Abstract (121st 2001).) quite absurd. "evolve" Amendment: sovereign Union, nose count against. 71 (if possible) infrequency bar with, takes doubtful. "uncommon," ibid., suggest, 12, (showing allegedly period 1984-2000)). (reporting retarded). If, "uncommon"; constitute tiny fraction (1% 3%), 7; constitutionally mandated sentencing, 328. uniform expect "uncommon." adapt 374: "[I]t possible, probable, induce [today's majority] [mentally retarded] imposed." Prize Feeble Effort fabricate go appeal (deservedly relegated footnote) assorted so-called "world community," polls. JUSTICE, 325-328 irrelevant.6 Equally irrelevant notions (thankfully) always people. forget America expounding.... [W]here settled nations, however enlightened Justices 868-869, 73 Beyond empty talk consensus," gives glimpse really underlies today's decision: pretension sentiments originally enshrined (its original meaning) "`[T]he Constitution,'" says, "contemplates Amendment.'" 597) (The unexpressed "contemplation" presumably lawyers superior herd, 1791 today.) arrogance assumption one's breath away. explains, cavalier game, all. end,'" 823, 597 opinion))), feelings intuition perceptions penology, mercy, entertained small unrepresentative segment sits Court." 873 74 genuinely portion then, agrees contrived found, "diminished capacities" analysis rests fundamental assumptions: (1) (2) properly wrong, length 966-990 (opinion always-and-everywhere "cruel" rack thumbscrew. permissible, "[t]he ratchet, temporary leniency fixes permanent maximum, disabling altered beliefs responding conditions." 990. unsubstantiated, contradicts immemorial belief, here England, indispensable matters: define indivisible line divides perfect partial insanity; duly jury, lest inhumanity human nature, too indulgence ...." Crown, 30. 76 Proceeding assumptions, raise "serious question" "social purposes" viz., 318-319. conveniently ignores third purpose" "incapacitation dangerous consequent prevention future," 183, JJ.). mind; discussion analysis.) Retribution advanced, goes, murderer, lacks (1980) Who says so? Is established correlation acuity rudimentary murder? Are disposed likely) willfully others? true: childlike innocence brutality. 77 Assuming, direct connection refrain show commits exquisite torture-killing "no culpable" "average" holdup-gone-wrong domestic dispute? Or moderately series torture-killings? Surely culpability, deservedness all) (above wrong) depravity precisely traditionally thought answerable imposes trials, sentencer's weighing (both crime) outrage sometimes demands science, logic pronounce wrong? Once admits does) blameless, 318, saying heinous knows wrong," sentencer reduces question. 78 discusses, deterrence: tells us, "less likely" nonretarded counterparts "process information." 320. leads (because deterred) kill believes. information"; asserts so. vindicated successfully deters many, all, class. Virginia's unaware words, supposed fully rationale, echo denying above. am somehow blameworthy (though die it; so, treat abused child. hold immune background factor. Eddings 455 113-117 79 throws grab bag "excessive" cases: "face execution" "to mitigation," counsel," witnesses. 320-321. "Special risk" flabby language (even flabbier likely") suppose "special exist plain stupid inarticulate ugly unsupported substance (which doubt), due prosecutions retarded; unusual. violation imperative. 80 81 adds list impeding assumed invent None existed include "ordinary" Godfrey, 592, absent mind, 801; 838 mandatory Woodson 280, 305 Sumner Shuman, 483 66, 77-78 requirement unguided discretion, empowered circumstances, 604 (1978) 110; accused insanity 410-411 something penalty; incremental 82 newest invention promises others turning game. One (set 308, 3) realize symptoms condition readily feigned. whereas feigns risks commitment institution until cured executed), 354, 370, pendency petitions claiming time, multiple habeas petitions, Moore 1044 (2002) grant applications execution). Perhaps practical difficulties experienced capital-punishment (to sentencer) immunity. Time disposition (an 6.8 enough. appear, renders inappropriate follow suit. pushing experiment pretext. Nothing accuracy Matthew Hale's endorsement traditional method taking guilt-reducing written three centuries ago: 84 "[Determination person's incapacity] difficulty, partly easiness counterfeiting variety degrees infirmity, whereof sufficient, excuse offenses.... 85 "Yet afforded best matters namely, twelve men ..., inspection judge." 32-33. respectfully 13-703.02(I) 5-4-618(d)(1) (1997);Reams 322 336, 340, 909 324, 326-327 (1995); 921.137(8) 2002); (1997); 35-36-9-6 (1998); Rondon 711 506, 512 (Ind. 1999); 21-4623(d), 21-4631(c) 532.140(3) 412(g) (1996); Booth 327 142, 166-167, 608 162, 174 (1992); 565.030(7) 400.27.12(c) Supp. Laws, ch. 1, 38; 39-13-203(b) Tran 3d 790, 798-799 (Tenn. 2001). "mentally "having substantially impairs law." 21-4623(e) retardation, concedes, analogous Model Code's "mental disease defect" excusing conduct, ALI, 4.01 (1985), mild Reply 53a-46a(h); 565.030(4)-(7); 15A-2005 4,supra, 23A-27A-26.1 (enacted 2000); 28-105.01(2)-(5) 400.27(12) (1994); (1994). positively counterindicative. cites, Conference, active Bishops Seeante, representative, Catholics, object intense ecumenical) criticism.

Category: 0