Capital punishment and offenders with mental retardation: response to the Penry brief.
The Supreme Court recently decided that the death penalty as it applies to persons with mental retardation is not a violation of constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment as long as juries consider the convicted person's disabilities during trial proceedings. Advocates for persons with mental retardation have argued that because their disability reduces culpability in capital offenses, the death penalty is always inappropriate. In this paper we argued that the latter position makes unwarranted categorical assumptions about mental retardation, fails to consider the individualized and situation-specific determinants of culpability for a capital offense, and undermines the very assumptions required to restore respect and value for citizens with mental retardation as participants in society.
Teachers College, Columbia University.
T
T
Calnen
L S
LS
Blackman
D002203:Capital Punishment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006708:Homicide / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense; D008607:Intellectual Disability; D016365:Liability, Legal; D011902:Rape / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States