Law Commons^™

Of Atkins And Men: Deviations From Clinical Definitions Of Mental Retardation In Death Penalty Cases, John H. Blume, Sheri Johnson, Christopher W. Seeds

Sheri Lynn Johnson

Under Atkins v. Virginia, the Eighth Amendment exempts from execution individuals who meet the clinical definitions of mental retardation set forth by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association. Both define mental retardation as significantly subaverage intellectual functioning accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning, originating before the age of 18. Since Atkins, most jurisdictions have adopted definitions of mental retardation that conform to those definitions. But some states, looking often to stereotypes of persons with mental retardation, apply exclusion criteria that deviate from and are more restrictive than the accepted scientific and clinical …

Of Atkins And Men: Deviations From Clinical Definitions Of Mental Retardation In Death Penalty Cases, John H. Blume, Sheri Johnson, Christopher W. Seeds

John H. Blume

Under Atkins v. Virginia, the Eighth Amendment exempts from execution individuals who meet the clinical definitions of mental retardation set forth by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association. Both define mental retardation as significantly subaverage intellectual functioning accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning, originating before the age of 18. Since Atkins, most jurisdictions have adopted definitions of mental retardation that conform to those definitions. But some states, looking often to stereotypes of persons with mental retardation, apply exclusion criteria that deviate from and are more restrictive than the accepted scientific and clinical …

Adaptive Behavior Malingering In Legal Claims Of Mental Retardation, Renee M. Kadlubek

UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to put people with mental retardation to death for capital crimes (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002). Justice Scalia dissented, suggesting that mental retardation is a condition easy to feign. The current study examined whether participants provided with the definition of mental retardation and adaptive behavior ("informed malingering group") are any better at malingering having mental retardation than participants not provided with the definitions ("malingering group"). Three groups of participants participated in this study: the control group, the malingering group, and the informed malingering group. All participants completed an intellectual assessment and …

And Death Shall Have No Dominion: How To Achieve The Categorical Exemption Of Mentally Retarded Defendants From Execution, J. Amy Dillard

All Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the Court’s categorical exclusion of mentally retarded defendants from execution and explores how trial courts should employ procedures to accomplish heightened reliability in the mental retardation determination; it maintains that if a mentally retarded defendant is subjected to a death sentence then the Atkins directive has been ignored. To satisfy the Atkins Court’s objective of protecting mentally retarded defendants from the “special risk of wrongful execution,” the article explores whether trial courts should engage in a unified, pre-trial competency assessment in all capital cases where the defendant asserts mental retardation as a bar to execution and how …

Life, Death, And Iq: It's Much More Than Just A Score: Understanding And Utilizing Forensic Psychological And Neuropsychological Evaluations In Atkins Intellectual Disability/Mental Retardation Cases, John Matthew Fabian, William W. Thompson, Jeffrey B. Lazarus

Cleveland State Law Review

This article highlights best practices for assessing MR and ID in capital cases with an emphasis on Atkins trial preparation and potential problems the authors have noted through experience. These best practices in Atkins hearings concern issues for the lawyers, forensic psychologists, and neuropsychologists, which include:

1. Practice effects and IQ testing

2. Consistency of IQ scores over time

3. Flynn Effect

4. Malingering versus cognitive suboptimal effort

5. Lack of records indicating pre-age 18 diagnosis of MR/ID

6. Retrospective assessment of adaptive behaviors

7. Death row trends of increasing IQ over the years while incarcerated

8. Maladaptive behaviors versus …

Of Atkins And Men: Deviations From Clinical Definitions Of Mental Retardation In Death Penalty Cases, John H. Blume, Sheri Johnson, Christopher W. Seeds

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Under Atkins v. Virginia, the Eighth Amendment exempts from execution individuals who meet the clinical definitions of mental retardation set forth by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association. Both define mental retardation as significantly subaverage intellectual functioning accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning, originating before the age of 18. Since Atkins, most jurisdictions have adopted definitions of mental retardation that conform to those definitions. But some states, looking often to stereotypes of persons with mental retardation, apply exclusion criteria that deviate from and are more restrictive than the accepted scientific and clinical …

Cruel And Unequal Punishment, Nita A. Farahany

Faculty Scholarship

This article argues Atkins and its progeny of categorical exemptions to the death penalty create and new and as of yet undiscovered interaction between the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court, the legal academy and commentators have failed to consider the relationship between the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Equal Protection Clause that the Court's new Eighth Amendment jurisprudence demands. This article puts forth a new synthesis of these two clauses, and demonstrates how the Court's new Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has remarkable Fourteenth Amendment implications. To see the point in …

Defining And Determining Retardation In Texas Capital Murder Defendants: A Proposal To The Texas Legislature., Graham Baker

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Although the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it is cruel and unusual to execute someone with a mental handicap, Texas statutes still do not adequately protect these individuals. Previously, the Court in Penry v. Lynaugh upheld states executing individuals with mental deficiencies. However, individual states began to outlaw such a practice. When the Court heard Atkins v. Virginia, they determined the states created a national consensus against executing persons who possess certain developmental disabilities, thus rendering it cruel and unusual. Atkins did not, however, define mental retardation and left it up to individual states to determine that criteria. …

Inconsistent Methods For The Adjudication Of Alleged Mentally Retarded Individuals: A Comparison Of Ohio's And Georgia's Post-Atkins Frameworks For Determining Mental Retardation, Scott R. Poe

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note compares Ohio's and Georgia's post-Atkins frameworks for determining mental retardation. Ohio's framework offers a fairer application of Atkins and should serve as a guide for a national legal standard for use by state trial courts to determine mental retardation. Specifically, Ohio's use of preponderance of the evidence is a more appropriate standard of proof for determining mental retardation because it better reaches the overall goal in Atkins. Allowing the judge to make the mental retardation determination protects the alleged mentally retarded defendant from potential jury bias. Because Ohio's and Georgia's definitions of mental retardation are substantially similar and …

Intelligence Testing And Atkins: Considerations For Appellate Courts And Appellate Lawyers, Lajuana Davis

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law: Retarded Justice: The Supreme Court's Subjective Standards For Capital Punishment Of The Mentally Retarded, Daniel Nickel

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Atkins Could Mean For People With Mental Illness, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article, written for a symposium on Atkins v. Virginia - the Supreme Court decision that prohibited execution of people with mental retardation - argues that people with severe mental illness must now also be protected from imposition of the death penalty. In labeling execution of people with mental retardation cruel and unusual, the Atkins majority stressed that mentally retarded people who kill are less blameworthy and less deterrable than the average murderer, an assertion that can also be made about people with severe mental illness. As it had in previous eighth amendment cases, however, the Court also relied heavily …

Atkins, Adolescence, And The Maturity Heuristic: Rationales For A Categorical Exemption For Juveniles From Capital Punishment, Jeffrey A. Fagan

Faculty Scholarship

In Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court voted six to three to bar further use of the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders. The Court offered three reasons for banning the execution of the retarded. First, citing a shift in public opinion over the thirteen years since Penry v. Lynaugh, the Court in Atkins ruled that the execution of the mentally retarded is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Second, the Court concluded that retaining the death penalty for the mentally retarded would not serve the interest in retribution or deterrence that is essential to capital …

Sexuality, Rape, And Mental Retardation, Deborah W. Denno

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Denno addresses the question of when sexual relations with a mentally retarded individual should be considered nonconsensual and therefore criminal. The article first explores the early treatment of mental retardation. It next demonstrates how old stereotypes influence the moralism inherent in modern conceptions of consent in rape determinations. Illustrating the point with reference to the Glen Ridge rape case, the article shows how courts applying contemporary rape statutes typically hold mentally retarded individuals to a higher standard of consent than nonretarded individuals. As a result, courts are hurting the very people they are supposed to protect …