"Executing the retarded"

When Johnny Paul Penry, a mentally retarded man, was granted a stay just hours before his execution for murder in November, his immediate concern was whether he could still have his last meal of a cheeseburger and French fries. Such is the state of justice in America that some states, Arizona among them, still execute mentally retarded people who function at levels comparable to the understanding of children no more than 10 years of age. Thus, it is only right that the U.S. Supreme Court Monday announced it would decide once again whether the execution of mentally retarded murderers is "cruel and unusual punishment," and therefore banned by the Eighth Amendment. The court considered that issue once before, in 1989 - in Penry's case, in fact. The court then ruled 5 to 4 that it was not unconsitutional to execute the mentally retarded. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "There is insufficient evidence of a national consensus against executing mentally retarded people convicted of capital offenses for us to conclude that it is categorically prohibited by the Eighth Amendment." The court looks at "evolving standards of decency," according to The New York Times, to determine whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. To decide the issue this time, the court agreed to hear the case of Ernest P. McCarver, a man with an I.Q. of 67 who is on North Carolina's death row for robbery and murder. When the court decided in Penry's case, only two states with the death penalty banned executions of the mentally retarded. Now, 13 of the 38 states with a death penalty do so. McCarver's attorney argued 13 states is a sufficient number to be a national consensus against executing the mentally ill. Arizona is not one of the 13 states prohibiting the execution of the mentally retarded, but a Capital Case Commission formed by Attorney General Janet Napolitano is considering the issue. It may issue its recommendations as early as today. The commission should recommend against such executions. State-sanctioned executions of the mentally retarded is retribution in its ugliest form. The public wouldn't stand for the execution of a 9-year-old, and it shouldn't stand for the execution of a man or woman with the mind of a 9-year-old. If justice is served, Arizona will decide on its own to prohibit the execution of the mentally ill. Then, next term, when it hears McCarver's case, the U.S. Supreme Court will find such executions unconstitutional. It is bad enough Arizona and the nation still have the death penalty. It is unconscionable to execute the retarded.

 (source: Editorial, Arizona Daily Star)