Feb. 28, 2002    

Life in prison, not execution Death penalty for mentally retarded killers should be declared cruel and unusual

 DARYL Atkins may or may not understand that his life is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. Atkins has an IQ of 59.

 Alexander Williams may or may not understand that his life has been spared by the Georgia Parole Board. He suffers from schizophrenia and paranoid delusions.

 Both men were sentenced to death for murder. Both cases illustrate why the execution of the mentally impaired should be declared cruel and unusual punishment.

 Atkins is on death row in Virginia for abducting a man from a 7-Eleven parking lot, robbing and killing him and stealing his truck. The crime was heinous, and should be severely punished.

 But because Atkins is mentally retarded, it's unlikely that he understood his Miranda rights when they were read to him. It's unlikely that he could grasp the legal issues involved so that he could contribute to his defense. He should be spared death but sentenced to life in prison.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that states could execute mentally retarded people because there was no national consensus against it. Since then, 18 of the 38 states that practice the death penalty have specifically banned such executions. Last week, when the high court heard arguments in Atkins' case, it was noted that a national consensus seems to be forming.

If the Supreme Court rules in Atkins' favor, it would bring relief only to the mentally retarded. The next step will be to ban executions of those who suffer from other mental conditions, such as schizophrenia.

Alexander Williams has been on death row in Georgia since he was convicted of the 1986 rape and murder of a young model. He has wild delusions and maintains connection with reality only when taking powerful medication. Executing him would be excessive. Fortunately, the Georgia State Parole Board, in a closely watched case, voted this week to commute his sentence to life in prison.

When Georgia, a state not known for being soft on murderers, joins the call for compassion for the mentally ill, it's clear that a consensus is at hand.

Cruel Death

Court should ban executions of retarded people

February 27, 2002

Executing mentally retarded people who are convicted of capital crimes is so inhumane that it is virtually unheard of among civilized nations. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989 gave the green light to such executions, claiming a national consensus against them had not been formed.

It would be hard to make the argument today. An August 2000 poll on the death penalty showed 52 percent of Americans favored prohibiting it for mentally retarded defendants. Only 22 percent opposed a ban, Peter D. Hart Research Associates found.

If that's not enough to sway the court, which last week took up the fate of a Virginia death row inmate, there's plenty more evidence.

In the past 13 years, the federal government and 18 states have exempted retarded convicts from capital punishment. Several other states are considering similar bans. Twelve states, including Michigan, prohibit the death penalty altogether. And just this week, Georgia commuted the death sentence of a paranoid schizophrenic man.

The Supreme Court usually decides cases on the basis of fact and constitutionality. But if it felt it was too hard to determine whether the nation believes executing retarded people was cruel and unusual punishment in 1989, it has plenty of evidence of public sentiment now.

It is unconscionable to put to death people whose mental capacity is so impaired they are unable to understand the consequences of their actions or participate in their defense. Even China, which executes thousands of people a year, shields retarded citizens from death.

The U.S. Supreme Court should do the same.