Law Journal Library - Skip to main content
Content Start

Click here to view short-term subscription options to access this document.

57 DePaul L. Rev. 679 (2007-2008)
Taking Account of the Diminished Capacities of the Retarded: Are Capital Jurors up to the Task

handle is hein.journals/deplr57 and id is 689 raw text is: TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE DIMINISHED
Maria Sandys,* Adam Trahan** & Heather Pruss***
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court extended its Eighth Amendment
jurisprudence to preclude individuals who are mentally retarded from
being sentenced to death.' Relying on an evolving standards of de-
cency analysis, the Court concluded, in Atkins v. Virginia, that there
was no reason to disagree with the judgment of the legislatures that
have recently addressed the matter and concluded that death is not a
suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal.'2 Unlike previ-
ous analyses based on evolving standards of decency, the majority de-
voted little attention to the outcomes of actual sentencing juries. As
then Chief Justice Rehnquist remarked in his dissent, [i]n reaching its
conclusion today, the Court does not take notice of the fact that
neither petitioner nor his amici have adduced any comprehensive sta-
tistics that would conclusively prove (or disprove) whether juries rou-
tinely consider death a disproportionate punishment for mentally
retarded offenders like petitioner.'3 Similarly, Justice Scalia's dissent
echoed the lack of information regarding actual sentencing juries:
The Court's analysis rests on two fundamental assumptions: (1)
that the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive punishments, and
(2) that sentencing juries or judges are unable to account properly
for the diminished capacities of the retarded .... The second as-
sumption-inability of judges or juries to take proper account of
mental retardation-is not only unsubstantiated, but contradicts the
immemorial belief, here and in England, that they play an indispen-
sable role in such matters .. .4
* Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University.
** Doctoral Student, Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University.
*   Doctoral Student, Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University.
1. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 (2002).
2. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
3. Id. at 324 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
4. Id. at 349 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original).

Already a Subscriber?

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is the world’s largest image-based and fully searchable legal and academic research database. Material contained in HeinOnline is an exact replication of the original printed product, and coverage is typically comprehensive. Contact us today for a free demo of this incredible resource.

We offer annual subscriptions to all HeinOnline collections to universities, colleges, law firms, individuals, and other institutions. To request a quote or trial, please click here.

Please note: the content in the Law Journal Library is constantly changing and some content has restrictions as required per the license. Therefore, please review the available content via the following link to ensure the material you wish to access is included in the database. For a complete list of content included in the Law Journal Library, please click here.

Learn More About the Law Journal Library (pdf)
Back To Top Jump To Bottom