Disparities in the Weight Given to IQ Scores When Determining the Existence of Intellectual Disabilities in Death Penalty Cases: The Legacy of Atkins v. Virginia

Authored by: Mary-Michael Rhodes

Abstract

It has long been established and well-known that one of the cornerstones of the United States is that individuals are to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, this idea is so central to this Nation’s ideology that it was included in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides: “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In imposing penalties on individuals who violate the laws of the United States, there are three justifications for such punishment: “rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution.” When a sentence is imposed on an individual, it must serve one of these three purposes.

Although the language of the Eighth Amendment is familiar to most people, the actual meaning of that language in operation has long been contested. When it comes to cases involving the death penalty, the United States Supreme Court has held that the language of the Eighth Amendment requires that the court be allowed to consider “as a mitigating factor, any aspect of the defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.” In carrying out this requirement, the jury or judge must be permitted to consider any mitigating evidence, including non-statutory mitigating evidence, in determining a defendant’s sentence in a capital case.