Atkins v. Virginia
Click on the PDF link below for the full version including footnotes.
Introduction
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment. In the case of Atkins v. Virginia, the Virginia Supreme Court had upheld the death sentence of a mentally disabled person, and the United States Supreme Court agreed to review whether such sentencing was constitutional.
Facts
On August 16, 1996, Daryl Renard Atkins and William Jones kidnapped and killed Eric Nesbitt. Earlier that day, Atkins and his accomplice were drinking and smoking marijuana. They later drove to a convenience store where they found their victim, Mr. Nesbitt. Atkins and Jones abducted Nesbitt, taking him to an automated teller machine where they forced him to withdraw $200. Atkins and Jones then drove their abductee to an isolated place, where Nesbitt pleaded to be left unharmed. One of the two men shot Nesbitt eight times.
Legal Background
At trial, Jones and Atkins testified to the events that took place during the incident. The critical point of contention was who shot the victim. The jury determined that it was Atkins who shot Nesbitt. After being convicted, Atkins’s main witness in the penalty phase was a forensic psychologist, Dr. Evan Nelson. Dr. Nelson told the court that Atkins was “mentally retarded” and that he had an “impaired” capacity to know what was right and wrong. Despite this, Atkins was sentenced to death.10 The Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial had a misleading verdict form. Dr. Nelson was again a witness for Atkins. The State’s witness, Dr. Stanton Samenow, contended that Atkins was not “mentally retarded” but was of “average intelligence, at least,” and might have antisocial personality disorder. In the second hearing, the jury again sentenced Atkins to death. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed Atkins’s sentence. Justice Hassell and Justice Koontz dissented, rejecting Dr. Samenow’s opinion of Atkins possessing average intelligence as “incredulous as a matter of law,” and concluding that “the imposition of the sentence of death upon a criminal defendant who has the mental age of a child between the ages of 9 and 12 is excessive.” Upon further appeal, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Holding & Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that executing someone who is mentally disabled violates Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Per Weems v. United States, a punishment violates the Eighth Amendment if it is not “proportioned to [the] offense.” The Court reasoned that in the time between this case and previous precedents on the death penalty, much had changed, and there had been a unidirectional legislative and judicial shift towards not allowing the execution of “mentally retarded individuals.” The Court concluded that it was appropriate to follow the shift in attitude towards the culpability of mentally disabled individuals being lesser and not allow their execution, and agreed that mentally disabled individuals had reduced culpability.
Analysis
The central question of Atkins is whether the execution of mentally disabled individuals constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. While some states have banned the death penalty for all convicted felons, some have not. Some argue that a mentally disabled person who commits a crime has the same moral obligations as other citizens and should be held to the same standards as a non-disabled person. However, how could you hold a diagnosed mentally disabled person to the same criminal standards as a person with no disabilities? Although those with a mental disability who commit a crime engage in the same actus reus, their mens rea is not the same. States believe criminals who are mentally disabled are more unknowing than the average criminal. Because criminal law considers both actus reus and mens rea, the mens rea of mentally disabled people should be an important consideration. The death penalty should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment that the Eighth Amendment disallows. In 1988, Congress enacted legislation banning the federal death penalty for any mentally disabled person.
A significant number of states today have rejected capital punishment entirely and many have concluded that the death penalty is not a reasonable punishment for a person who is mentally disabled. Executing a person who is mentally disabled is a very rare occurrence in the states that still allow it. Because of the difference in mens rea between a mentally disabled individual and a non–mentally disabled individual, the Court made the correct decision in banning the death penalty for people with a mental disability.