Is sentencing execution upon a mentally retarded individual unconstitutional? This is a question that has recently been answered by the United States Supreme Court. According to Justice John Paul Stevens executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional. These issues were stemmed from a recent trial in Virginia that dealt with a mentally retarded male who was sentenced to death. There are conflicting opinions on this issue, that have to do with the interpretation of the eighth amendment the moral views of the supreme court justices, and the citizens of the United States.

One might ask, "What is the definition of mentally retarded?" According to an article written by the Dallas Morning News titled "Justices to Review Death Penalty for Mentally Retarded Inmates", states currently use a test containing three questions to determine whether a person is mentally retarded. The first question; is the person's IQ less than 70? (An average person's IQ is 100.) The second question; was mental retardation diagnosed by the age of 18? This is to ensure that a prisoner wouldn't try to act as if he were mentally retarded to get out of being executed. Finally it needs to be deter

Justice Antonin Scalia supports executing the mentally retarded, and feels that if there is a problem with unfair trials because the mentally retarded person is unable to defend themselves feels that, "if this unsupported claim has any substance to it (which I doubt), it might support a due process claim in criminal prosecutions of the mentally retarded."(Shultz, 2002, p. 5)

Not only are there worries of cruel and unusual punishment there are also issues of wrongful execution. This is because they are less able to defend themselves and they are sometimes easily persuaded. They are less able to make a persuasive defense, and give meaningful assistance to their counsel. (Shultz 2002)

The issues of the death penalty are very complicated and bring out the moral and political views of citizens, justices, and the government. The United States Supreme Court has recently deemed executing the mentally retarded unconstitutional. With the monumental Atkins V. Virginia case there are countless debated whether the Supreme Court made the accurate decision. This is an issue that will probably never be proven, but either way there will always be evidence supporting both sides of the argument.

The third argument for those who support the death penalty is that most people mentally retarded or not know that murder is wrong. If that can be established in trial then they should be tried as a normal person. If they committed a crime as horrific as murder then there should be no other option. (Ashraf 2002)

The eighth amendment states that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment be inflicted." When stated cruel and unusual punishment, does this mean that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional? In 1989 the Supreme Court decided in the Penry V. Lynaugh case that executing the mentally retarded was allowed, and was not unconstitutional. (Shultz 2002)

Opposite of the advocates who support anti-execution there are people who support executing those who are mentally retarded. Many people believe that it is not unconstitutional. It is believed that like George in Of Mice and Men, the mentally retarded are a danger to society, and shouldn't be allowed to live.

In 1937 John Steinbeck wrote a famous book called Of Mice and Men. This

Some common words found in the essay are:
Antonin Scalia, John Steinbeck, Paul Stevens, Retarded Inmates, James Ellis, Penal Code, mentally retarded, Atkins Virginia, Eric Nesbitt, Supreme Court, , executing mentally retarded, executing mentally, cruel unusual, supreme court, mentally retarded unconstitutional, retarded unconstitutional, death penalty, cruel unusual punishment, unusual punishment, eighth amendment, shultz 2002, atkins virginia, death penalty mentally, john paul stevens,
Approximate Word count = 1565
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)