No alla Pena di Morte - NO to the Death penalty

NO alla Pena di Morte
Campagna Internazionale

Per la Corte Suprema non ï¿½ piï¿½ possibile mettere a morte i ritardati mentali.

Supreme Court bars executing mentally retarded.



	Liberazione	il sole 24 ore
Il piccolo		THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS
		TOTONTO STAR

	ABC News
US Newswire
		EL PAIS
EL MUNDO

United States Supreme Court

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

No. 008452. Argued February 20, 2002 Decided June 20, 2002

Petitioner Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death. Affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, in rejecting Atkins contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded.

Held: Executions of mentally retarded criminals are cruel and unusual punishments prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Pp. 517.

(a) A punishment is excessive, and therefore prohibited by the Amendment, if it is not graduated and proportioned to the offense. E.g., Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367. An excessiveness claim is judged by currently prevailing standards of decency. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100101. Proportionality review under such evolving standards should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent, see, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000, the clearest and most reliable of which is the legislation enacted by the countrys legislatures, Penry, 492 U.S., at 331. In addition to objective evidence, the Constitution contemplates that this Court will bring its own judgment to bear by asking whether there is reason to agree or disagree with the judgment reached by the citizenry and its legislators, e.g., Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597. Pp. 58.

(b) Much has changed since Penrys conclusion that the two state statutes then existing that prohibited such executions, even when added to the 14 States that had rejected capital punishment completely, did not provide sufficient evidence of a consensus. 492 U.S., at 334. Subsequently, a significant number of States have concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal, and similar bills have passed at least one house in other States. It is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change. Given that anticrime legislation is far more popular than legislation protecting violent criminals, the large number of States prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded persons (and the complete absence of legislation reinstating such executions) provides powerful evidence that today society views mentally retarded offenders as categorically less culpable than the average criminal. The evidence carries even greater force when it is noted that the legislatures addressing the issue have voted overwhelmingly in favor of the prohibition. Moreover, even in States allowing the execution of mentally retarded offenders, the practice is uncommon. Pp. 812.

(c) An independent evaluation of the issue reveals no reason for the Court to disagree with the legislative consensus. Clinical definitions of mental retardation require not only subaverage intellectual functioning, but also significant limitations in adaptive skills. Mentally retarded persons frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial, but, by definition, they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand others reactions. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability. In light of these deficiencies, the Courts death penalty jurisprudence provides two reasons to agree with the legislative consensus. First, there is a serious question whether either justification underpinning the death penaltyretribution and deterrence of capital crimesapplies to mentally retarded offenders. As to retribution, the severity of the appropriate punishment necessarily depends on the offenders culpability. If the culpability of the average murderer is insufficient to justify imposition of death, see Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 433, the lesser culpability of the mentally retarded offender surely does not merit that form of retribution. As to deterrence, the same cognitive and behavioral impairments that make mentally retarded defendants less morally culpable also make it less likely that they can process the information of the possibility of execution as a penalty and, as a result, control their conduct based upon that information. Nor will exempting the mentally retarded from execution lessen the death penaltys deterrent effect with respect to offenders who are not mentally retarded. Second, mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution because of the possibility that they will unwittingly confess to crimes they did not commit, their lesser ability to give their counsel meaningful assistance, and the facts that they are typically poor witnesses and that their demeanor may create an unwarranted impression of lack of remorse for their crimes. Pp. 1217.

260 Va. 375, 534 S. E. 2d 312, reversed and remanded. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which OConnor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined.

NEW YORK, 20 GIU - La Corte Suprema si e' spaccata per 6-3 sulla decisione, che capovolge la precedente giurisprudenza del massimo organo giudiziario americano.

La sentenza avra' conseguenze soltanto sui casi di pena di morte che riguardino ritardati mentali e non entra nel merito della costituzionalita' della pena capitale in generale, ma e'

destinata ad alimentare il dibattito sulle esecuzioni in America.

I giudici hanno stabilito che i killer che presentano problemi mentali devono essere processati, ma non possono andare incontro alla PENA DI MORTE, giudicata una punizione 'crudele' nei loro confronti e quindi al di fuori della Costituzione.

NEW YORK, 20 GIU - Dal 1989, quando la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti dichiaro' costituzionali le esecuzioni di ritardati mentali, l'atteggiamento e la mentalita' dell'America nei confronti della pena di morte e' cambiato. E' quanto hanno sottolineato, nel motivare la loro decisione, i sei giudici della Corte che hanno deciso oggi di capovolgere la sentenza di

13 anni fa.

La Corte si e' pronunciata sul caso di un detenuto della Virginia, Daryl Renard Atkins, condannato a morte nonostante abbia un quoziente d'intelligenza di 59 (ben al di sotto del minimo di 70 che per la legge americana fissa il limite di una piena capacita' mentale).

L'effetto immediato della sentenza sara' nei 20 stati degli Usa che ancora consideravano legittima l'esecuzione di ritardati. Non ci sono cifre disponibili su quante condanne potrebbero essere mutate immediatamente in ergastoli, ma secondo fonti legali sarebbero decine.

Nel 1989 erano solo due gli stati che si opponevano alla condanna di ritardati, adesso sono 18. ''Non e' tanto il numero degli stati a essere significativo - ha scritto il giudice John Paul Stevens nella relazione di maggioranza - quanto la consistenza della direzione del cambiamento. Questa pratica e' diventata inusuale ed e' corretto dire che contro di essa si e' sviluppato un consenso nazionale''.

I tre giudici piu' conservatori della Corte, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia e Clarence Thomas, si sono duramente pronunciati contro la decisione degli altri sei giudici, definendola ''un grave errore''. (ANSA).

La Corte Suprema: "Punizione crudele"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- La Corte Suprema statunitense ha messo al bando la condanna a morte per ritardati mentali, giudicandola "una punizione crudele e insolita", che viola i dettami costituzionali.

La decisione del massimo organo giudiziario americano - votata con una maggioranza di 6 a 3 - capovolge la precedente giurisprudenza ed ï¿½ destinata ad alimentare il dibattito sulle esecuzioni negli Usa.

La sentenza non entra nel merito della costituzionalitï¿½ della pena capitale, ma avrï¿½ un effetto immediato sui 20 stati americani in cui fino a oggi era legale mettere a morte un ritardato mentale, e risparmierï¿½ la vita a persone come Dary Atkins, ritardato mentale, condannato a morire in Virginia.

Doreen Croser, dell'American Association on Mental Retardation, ha definito "meravigliosa" la decisione della Corte Suprema. "E' tutto quello per cui abbiamo lavorato per quasi vent'anni", ha commentato.

La svolta della Corte Suprema si inserisce in un momento di acceso dibattito sulla pena capitale, alimentato in parte dall'introduzione del test del Dna, che ha portato all'assoluzione di diverse persone detenute nel braccio della morte.

Dal 1976, anno in cui la Corte Suprema ha reintrodotto la pena di morte negli Usa, 35 delle oltre 775 persone la cui condanna a morte ï¿½ stata eseguita erano ritardati mentali, con un quoziente di intelligenza di 70 punti o piï¿½ basso (il quoziente di intelligenza medio ï¿½ di 100 punti).

Supreme Court bars executing mentally retarded

June 20, 2002

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Thursday that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishment," violating the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

The ruling is a victory for opponents of the death penalty, and spares the life of convicted killer Daryl Renard Atkins, who was scheduled to be executed in Virginia.

Atkins was convicted of shooting an Air Force enlisted man for beer money in 1996. Atkins' lawyers say he has an IQ of 59 and has never lived on his own or held a job.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion which was joined by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The ruling doesn't address the constitutionality of capital punishment in general, and marked a reversal for the high court.

The majority's view reflects changes in public attitudes on the issue since the court declared such executions constitutional in 1989. Then, only two states that used capital punishment outlawed the practice for the retarded. Now, 18 states prohibit it.

"It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of the change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, in a report by The Associated Press.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

According to a report by The Associated Press, the three dissenting justices, the court's most conservative members, telegraphed their views earlier this month, when they complained bitterly about reprieves the court majority had granted to two Texas inmates who claim they are retarded.

The most immediate effect of the ruling will be in the 20 states that allowed execution of the retarded up to now. Presumably, dozens or perhaps hundreds of inmates in those states will now argue that they are retarded, and that their sentences should be converted to life in prison.

In the future, the ruling will mean that people arrested for a killing will not face a potential death sentence if they can show they are retarded, generally defined as having an IQ of 70 or lower, the AP reported.

Anti-death penalty groups hail ruling

Death penalty opponents hailed the Supreme Court's ruling against executing retarded inmates as a moral breakthrough.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has finally ushered the United States into the circle of civilized nations when it comes to such executions," said William F. Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "Our justice system has now caught up with the moral sensibilities of the American people."

But some victims' advocates said the decision Thursday could delay justice by allowing death row inmates to file frivolous appeals in attempts to have themselves declared retarded.

"It's a Pandora's box, and it's deep and wide," said Dianne Clements, president of Justice For All, a Texas victims' rights group. Her son was murdered in 1991.

"It has opened the door to years of litigation," Clements said of the ruling. "And there are plenty of people who are going to walk through it."

But state Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat whose bill to ban the execution of the mentally retarded in Texas was vetoed last year by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, said, "I'm elated."

"Just as we don't execute children in this country or in this state, we ought not execute someone who has the mind of a child," Ellis said.

In its 6-3 opinion in Atkins vs. Virginia, the high court reversed course and ruled that executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel.

The decision gives dozens of inmates on death row the possibility of a reprieve. It did not address the constitutionality of capital punishment overall.

Dissenting justices criticized the majority for basing their opinion on public opinion polls or the justices' personal views.

But death penalty opponents said the ruling would be hailed around the world.

"Concerns remain about many other aspects of the death penalty, but at least today we have stopped a practice that most Americans and the rest of the world find abhorrent," said Richard C. Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

Court Disallows Executing Retarded

Jun 20,2002

By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court reversed course Thursday and ruled that executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel, giving scores of inmates on death row the possibility of a reprieve.

The most immediate effect of the ruling will be in the 20 states that allow execution of retarded people. Dozens or perhaps hundreds of inmates in those states will likely now argue that they are retarded, and that their sentences should be converted to life in prison.

The 6-3 ruling is confined to mentally retarded defendants convicted of murder and does not address the constitutionality of capital punishment in general.

The majority's view reflects changes in public attitudes on the issue since the court declared such executions acceptable in 1989. Then, only two states that used capital punishment outlawed the practice for retarded defendants. Now, 18 states prohibit it.

"It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of the change," Justice John Paul Stevens ( news - web sites) wrote for the majority.

"The practice ... has become unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it," Stevens wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor ( news - web sites), Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer ( news - web sites).

"This consensus unquestionably reflects widespread judgment about the relative culpability of mentally retarded offenders, and the relationship between mental retardation and the penological purposes served by the death penalty," Stevens wrote.

In the future, the ruling will mean that people arrested for a killing will not face a potential death sentence if they can show they are retarded, generally defined as having an IQ of 70 or lower.

The court left it to states to develop their own systems to ensure that mentally retarded people are not executed.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia ( news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas ( news - web sites) dissented. The three, the court's most conservative members, telegraphed their views earlier this month, when they complained bitterly about reprieves the court majority had granted to Texas inmates who claim they are retarded.

The court ruled in favor of a Virginia inmate, Daryl Renard Atkins, who was convicted of shooting an Air Force enlisted man for beer money in 1996. Atkins' lawyers say he has an IQ of 59 and has never lived on his own or held a job.

The court used state laws as a barometer, but also went beyond them to look at why mentally retarded killers are different than killers of normal intelligence, and whether any wider social purpose is served by executing them.

Executing mentally retarded people neither appropriately punishes the criminal nor serves as a deterrent to future crimes, the majority found.

Many mentally retarded defendants know right from wrong, but they are more likely to act on impulse or to be swayed by others in a group, Stevens wrote.

"Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability."

Retarded people make bad witnesses, and may come off in court as unrepentant, Stevens wrote.

"Mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution."

In a rare dissent read from the bench, Scalia said the majority hung a constitutionally suspect ruling on the slim reed of recent state lawmaking.

Thursday's ruling is not grounded either in the Constitution nor in current social attitudes about the death penalty, Scalia wrote for himself and the other two dissenters.

"Seldom has an opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members."

In a separate dissent, Rehnquist said the majority went too far in looking at factors beyond the state laws. The majority puts too much stock in opinion polls and the views of national and international observers, Rehnquist wrote.

"Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent," Rehnquist said. Rehnquist omitted the customary word "respectfully" before "dissent."

The Justice Project, a group that monitors the criminal justice system for any inequities, applauded the ruling, saying it "reflects a growing national concern that the administration of the death penalty is unfair. This decision comes at a time when there is growing agreement among death penalty proponents and opponents alike that the capital punishment system is broken."

The case turned on the Eighth Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishments," and how to define those terms today.

Times change, and with them public sentiment about what is appropriate punishment for various crimes, the court has observed in the past. For example, at various times in the country's history it was considered acceptable to flog people in public, or to execute those convicted of rape.

Counting the 12 states that do not allow capital punishment at all, 30 states prohibit execution of retarded people.

The number of states that banned the practice increased ninefold between the court's last ruling on the issue and the time it heard arguments in Atkins' case. The court was forced to toss out a North Carolina case it originally selected to reconsider the retardation question last year, because that state banned the practice before the court could hear the case.

Virginia authorities argued that Atkins planned his crime and understood afterward what he had done. The state claimed he was no less culpable for the crime than a person of normal intelligence.

Atkins had 20 previous felonies on his record at the time of the killing, the state argued. Atkins gave a detailed confession to police when he was arrested, describing how he and an accomplice kidnapped the victim, forced him to withdraw cash from a bank teller machine and then drove him to a deserted field and shot him eight times.

O'Connor wrote the 5-4 decision in 1989 upholding execution of the retarded.

There was "insufficient evidence of a national consensus" against the executions to determine that they were unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, she wrote then.

President Bush ( news - web sites) has said he opposes executing the mentally retarded although two such inmates were executed while he was governor of Texas. Bush's successor as governor vetoed a ban on the practice.

JUNE 20, 2002:

USA: Court strikes down death penalty for mentally retarded

A divided Supreme Court reversed itself Thursday and ruled that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel.

The 6-3 ruling is confined to mentally retarded killers, and does not address the constitutionality of capital punishment in general.

"It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of the change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. The 3, the court's most conservative members, telegraphed their views earlier this month, when they complained bitterly about reprieves the court majority had granted to two Texas inmates who claim they are retarded.

In the future, the ruling will mean that people arrested for a killing will not face a potential death sentence if they can show they are retarded, generally defined as having an IQ of 70 or lower.

The dissenting justices said the majority went too far in looking at factors beyond the state laws.

The majority puts too much stock in opinion polls and the views of national and international observers, Rehnquist wrote.

"Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent," Rehnquist said. Rehnquist omitted the customary word "respectfully" before "dissent."

The case turned on the 8th Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishments," and how to define those terms today.

Using elected legislatures as a barometer, the court majority concluded that the public no longer accepts the notion that execution is appropriate for a killer who may lack the intelligence to fully understand his crime.

"The practice ... has become unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it," Stevens wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Many mentally retarded defendants know right from wrong, but they are more likely to act on impulse or to be swayed by others in a group, Stevens wrote.

"Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability."

Counting the 12 states that do not allow capital punishment at all, 30 states prohibit execution of the retarded.

Virginia authorities argued that Atkins planned his crime and understood afterward what he had done. The state claimed he was no less culpable for the crime than a person of normal intelligence.

O'Connor wrote the 5-4 decision in 1989 upholding execution of the retarded.

There was "insufficient evidence of a national consensus" against the executions to determine that they were unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, she wrote then.

President Bush has said he opposes executing the mentally retarded. Bush's successor as governor of Texas vetoed a ban on the practice.

Reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that executing retarded inmates is unconstitutionally cruel

Some quotes on the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision that executing retarded inmates is unconstitutionally cruel:

"30 states have either banned the death penalty altogether or stopped the execution of those with mental retardation. There is no doubt that there is now a national consensus on this issue." - Richard C. Dieter, Death Penalty Information Center.

"It signals the majority of the court's growing awareness that in this country there is profound discomfiture, at a minimum, about how the death penalty has been used." - Jamie Fellner, Human Rights Watch.

"Do you say that someone is mentally retarded if the IQ is 70 or below? Or do you also use adaptive behavior of the individual? Or both? Will a defense attorney question the definition? Certainly." - Louisiana Attorney General Richard Ieyoub.

"Any (death row) inmate who does not file an appeal to have himself declared retarded ought to have his IQ tested." - Dianne Clements of Justice For All.

"Just as we don't execute children in this country or in this state, we ought not execute someone who has the mind of a child." - Texas state Sen. Rodney Ellis.

"The court's decision protects the integrity of the criminal justice system and recognizes our contemporary standards of decency." - Robert E. Hirshon, American Bar Association.

"It's going to give tremendous incentive for attorneys to argue for stays for their clients." - Tom Block of Missourians Against State Killing.

"All of a sudden everybody on death row is going to become retarded." - Mississippi Assistant Attorney General Marvin "Sonny" White.

La Corte Suprema Usa abolisce la pena di morte per i ritardati

NEW YORK - Daryl Renard Atkins aveva un quoziente intellettuale da ritardato mentale quando, nel 1996, uccise in Virginia un aviere dell'Air Force per rubargli i soldi necessari a comprarsi una birra. Perciï¿½ non potrï¿½ essere giustiziato.

Lo ha deciso ieri la Corte Suprema americana, dividendosi su una sentenza che da una parte limita la pena di morte, ma dall'altra potrebbe favorire la sua conservazione. Le esecuzioni dei ritardati mentali erano sul tavolo dei giudici da anni e avevano provocato disgusto e polemiche, come ad esempio nel 1992, quando Clinton aveva interrotto la sua prima campagna presidenziale per tornare in Arkansas e negare la grazia a un minorato. Negli anni scorsi il sistema era arrivato all'assurdo di giustiziare un criminale che durante l'ultimo pasto aveva chiesto ai carcerieri di mettergli da parte il dolce, perchï¿½ lo voleva mangiare dopo l'esecuzione.

Nel 1989 la Corte Suprema aveva affrontato il problema, ma con cinque voti favorevoli e quattro contrari aveva deciso che uccidere un ritardato non violava l'Ottavo emendamento della Costituzione, che vieta ï¿½punizioni crudeli e inusualiï¿½. Da allora, perï¿½, il vento ï¿½ cambiato. Tredici anni fa solo il governo federale e due Stati vietavano le esecuzioni dei ritardati, definiti tali se hanno un quoziente intellettuale inferiore a 70.

Oggi il numero degli Stati e' salito a 18, e se lo sommiamo ai 12 che non hanno la pena di morte, una maggioranza di 30 stati proibisce la pratica. Questo mutamento legale, unito ai sondaggi sull'avversione degli americani per le esecuzioni dei ritardati, e alle pressioni internazionali politiche e religiose, ha convinto due giudici a cambiare idea.

Cosï¿½ ieri sei membri della Corte hanno approvato il divieto, e tre si sono opposti. I giudici favorevoli a fermare le esecuzioni sono stati John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Stephen Breyer, ossia il blocco dei magistrati liberal piï¿½ i conservatori meno rigidi. Invece il capo della Corte William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia e Clarence Thomas hanno votato contro. Secondo Stevens, autore della motivazione della maggioranza, ï¿½non siamo persuasi che l'esecuzione dei ritardati farï¿½ avanzare il proposito deterrente e retributivo della pena di morteï¿½. Le deficienze intellettuali, ha continuato l'anziano giudice, ï¿½non garantiscono l'esenzione dalle sanzioni criminali, ma diminuiscono la colpevolezza personale. Inoltre gli imputati ritardati corrono uno speciale rischio di essere uccisi ingiustamenteï¿½, perchï¿½ non sanno difendersi e non capiscono bene il procedimento di cui sono protagonisti.

Scalia, parlando a nome della minoranza, ha risposto con durezza che ï¿½raramente un'opinione di questa Corte si era basata in maniera cosï¿½ ovvia sul nulla, a parte i punti di vista personali dei suoi membriï¿½. Il presidente Bush ha detto di essere contrario alle esecuzioni dei ritardati, sebbene le abbia permesse quando era governatore del Texas, e ora la sentenza apre a molti condannati la porta per la commutazione della pena.

Richard Dieter, direttore del Death Penalty Information Center, ha detto che ï¿½almeno abbiamo eliminato una pratica aborrenteï¿½, ma l'impatto della decisione sul problema generale delle esecuzioni ï¿½ incerto. Il modo in cui viene applicata la pena ï¿½ in discussione soprattutto da quando l'Illinois ha imposto una moratoria, perchï¿½ la prova del Dna aveva scagionato troppi condannati innocenti.

Al Congresso ï¿½ stato appena presentato l'Innocence Protection Act, che vuole proprio aggiustare il sistema, garantendo l'accesso ai test medici e ad avvocati compententi. Migliorare l'uso della pena di morte, perï¿½, potrebbe allontanare il giorno della sua abolizione.

Paolo Mastrolilli

La storica sentenza motivata dal ï¿½profondo mutamento di sensibilitï¿½ dei nostri tempiï¿½. Nel braccio della morte 3700 condannati

La Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti: ï¿½Mai piï¿½ esecuzioni per i ritardati mentaliï¿½

Sfuggirï¿½ alla condanna capitale Johnny Paul Penry, che a 56 anni crede ancora a Babbo Natale

DAL NOSTRO CORRISPONDENTE

NEW YORK - Storica sentenza sulla pena capitale della Corte Suprema americana. Il massimo organo giudiziario degli Stati Uniti ha stabilito che nessun individuo affetto da handicap mentale potrï¿½, da oggi, essere condannato a morte nei 50 stati dell'Unione.

Pur non mettendo in dubbio la costituzionalitï¿½ del patibolo in generale, la decisione - passata con una maggioranza di 6 voti favorevoli contro 3 contrari - rappresenta una delle svolte piï¿½ significative nella controversa politica americana verso la pena di morte degli ultimi anni. Svolta che, sperano gli attivisti, puï¿½ preludere all'abolizione del pena capitale tout court in tempi relativamente brevi.

Da quando la Corte Suprema ha reintrodotto la pena capitale nel 1976, almeno 35 dei 775 uomini e donne mandate a morte in Usa erano ritardati mentali: avevano cioï¿½ un quoziente intellettivo sotto ai 70.

Anche se nessuno conosce con precisione la percentuale di handicappati tra i 3700 detenuti attualmente nel braccio della morte, l'effetto immediato della sentenza sarï¿½ enorme nei 20 Stati che ammettono l'esecuzione di ritardati mentali. Uno dei primi ad essere ï¿½graziatiï¿½ sarï¿½ Johnny Paul Penry, il piï¿½ famoso minorato degli Usa, che a 56 anni ha un'intelligenza di un bimbo di 7 anni e crede ancora a Santa Claus: per lui si erano mobilitati governi e organizzazioni umanitari da tutto il mondo, compresa lï¿½Italia.

Nel motivare la storica svolta l'Alta corte si ï¿½ appellata al ï¿½profondo mutamento di sensibilitï¿½ dei nostri tempiï¿½. Mutamento dimostrato, oltrechï¿½ dai sondaggi, dal fatto che oggi ben 18 Stati proibiscono l'esecuzione dei ritardati, contro solo due del 1989, anno in cui tale pratica venne dichiarata costituzionale dalla Corte Suprema. ï¿½Quel che ï¿½ significativo non ï¿½ tanto il numero di Stati, quanto la coerenza nella direzione del cambiamentoï¿½, scrive nell'opinione di maggioranza il giudice John Paul Stevens. ï¿½ï¿½ legittimo affermare - aggiunge Stevens - che il consenso nazionale oggi ï¿½ contrario a questa praticaï¿½.

Di ben altro avviso i tre magistrati ultra conservatori che hanno votato contro, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas e William Rehnquist (gli stessi che orchestrarono il voto anti-Gore in Florida). Il capo della Corte, Rehnquist, ha accusato i colleghi di ï¿½aver ceduto alle pressioni dei sondaggi e della stampa nazionale e internazionaleï¿½.

Ma ad avvallare il nuovo corso ï¿½ persino un paladino indiscusso della pena capitale come George W. Bush. ï¿½Non dovremmo mai giustiziare un ritardato - affermï¿½ il presidente che ha mandato a morte un numero record di condannati, ben 152, da governatore del Texas - il nostro sistema giudiziario protegge gli individui che non capiscono la natura del crimine commessoï¿½.

Secondo uno studio svolto nei bracci della morte dalla Emory University School of Law, la stragrande maggioranza dei ritardati mentali confonde ï¿½avvocato difensoreï¿½ con ï¿½pubblica accusaï¿½, non comprende il significato della frase ï¿½hai il diritto di rimanere in silenzioï¿½ (la formula con cui la costituzione Usa sancisce la prerogativa dell'arrestato a non testimoniare prima di aver consultato un legale) ed ï¿½ piï¿½ prona a confessare un crimine mai commesso.

Alessandra Farkas