A Debate on Imposing Death Penalty to Mentally Retarded Offenders

The American Bar connective (ABA) has entered the debate and expressed its opposition to the carrying out of persons with mental retardent and juveniles (Streiker & Streiker, 1998).

The ABA's position has been gener eachy supported by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. Exempting the mentally slow down and juveniles from capital punishment would meet the court's doctrine of "narrowing," which suggests that classes of defendants for which in that respect is a special(a)ly high degree of possibility for slue about the question of "desert" or moral culpableness should be exempted. Streiker and Streiker (1998) take the position that the ABA opposition to the execution of the mentally retarded represents an informed stance and that the federal courts' refusal to render a decease sentence in the cases of mentally retarded defendants supports a constitution that should be adopted by all of the states.

It is this particular line of work that will be explored herein. The ending penalty, as Michael Ross (1999, p. 43) states, "is an supreme punishment" that "should be imposed on persons whose sense of responsibleness and judgment is such that they fully appreciate the seriousness of what they were doing." The problem of whether or non to execute the mentally retarded has emerged in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans (i.e., 75 percent) kick upstairs capital punishment, but when s

If this resource is chosen, mentally retarded inmates currently sitting on death row could merely be retained on death row by a gubernatorial semipermanent curb of execution. Such a move in those states where a mentally retarded offender awaits execution would return the issue foursquare to the Supreme Court, which after all, is most likely to be the final arbiter in this issue. This strategy would be economically much costly than an execution, but may ultimately serve the states and auberge better than execution.

Wilson (2001) argues that the execution of the mentally retarded is a contentious issue in part because of the inherent difficulty in determining the relationship between slowness and competency.

Mental retardation is generally understood as present in individuals who grade less than 70 points on a standardized IQ test. IQ tests, however, may not necessarily capture competence and some people with an IQ below 70 may well be competent to stand trial in the sense that they know certain actions are wrong, can convey to their attorneys all of the relevant facts, and testify with credibility.

Harry, J.L. (2001). Florida bans executions of retarded offenders. Corrections Compendium, 26(7), 7.

The intents and objectives of the proposed policy change to be presented below focus upon developing a consistent, nationwide standard on the question of whether or not the mentally retarded individual should be executed. Integral to this goal is the determination of what strategies a court can use in determining if: 1) the individual defendant is genuinely mentally retarded or pretending retardation in order to get away the death penalty; and 2) if the individual is mentally retarded consort to an acceptable definition or standard of retardation, the individual is get on competent to stand trial and assist in his or her own defense.

If it is true that two to ten percent of all people currently on death row and awaiting execution are
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!