Digital Commons Network^™

The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.

Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Homicide Survivors’ Fairness-For-Victims Manifesto, Lester Jackson

LESTER JACKSON

Murderer advocates place a far greater value on the lives of the most savage murderers than on the lives of their victims. Let them deny it; their words and deeds conclusively give the lie to that denial. The critical question is this: Whose concept of justice is going to prevail? The concept of a small but vocal well-financed minority with influence and power out of all proportion to its numbers, or that of the large but poorly financed and disorganized majority. In recent decades, the former have dominated. Tragically, compared to media-dominant murderer advocates, victims have been virtually voiceless. Yes, …

The Death Penalty’S “Finely Tuned Depravity Calibrators” Fairness Follies Of Fairness Phonies Fixated On Criminals Instead Of Crimes, Lester Jackson

LESTER JACKSON

It has been loudly and repeatedly proclaimed by opponents that capital punishment is “unfair.” In their view, it is unfair because (1) only some murderers receive the ultimate sentence and (2) they are not the most deserving. Underlying this view is the remarkable assumption that fairness is subject to “fine tuning” and “moral accuracy.” It is argued here that this assumption is indefensible both in theory and in practice. As a theoretical matter, it is insupportable to suggest that matters of conscience, right and wrong, are subject to calibration or “accuracy.” Right and wrong are not determined in the same …

Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Appropriate Standard Of Proof For Determining Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases: How High Is Too High?, Timothy Saviello

Timothy Saviello

This paper takes a comprehensive look at how intellectual disability is diagnosed and proven in court, and applies the reasoning in the recent Supreme Court decision in Hall v. Florida to the determination of the appropriate standard of proof when capital defendants raise intellectual disability, concluding that preponderance of the evidence is the only standard of proof which adequately protects intellectually disabled capital defendants from unconstitutional execution.

In Atkins v. Virginia the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment prevented the execution of a criminal defendant suffering from intellectual disability. Because the Court in …

The Federal Death Penalty And The Constitutionality Of Capital Punishment, Scott W. Howe

Scott W. Howe

The federal death penalty results in few executions but is central to the larger story of capital punishment in the United States. The explanation for its importance lies with its role in resolving the permissible uses of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment. In the last decade, federal statutes governing the federal death penalty seem to have exerted outsize influence with the Court in its development of “proportionality” doctrine, the rules by which the Justices confine the use of capital punishment under the Constitution. In rejecting capital punishment for retarded offenders, juvenile offenders and child rapists, the Court in …