WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - In Media Res: Atkins v. Virginia

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

Join Hershey and Stephanie as they discuss a 2005 Supreme Court case ruling on the death penalty.

Hello, beautiful people, and welcome to our show on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM. My name is Hershey. And my name is Stephanie. And we're your host for In Media Res, a show where we examine a landmark court case starting from the middle of the action. In this episode, we will be discussing the 2002 Supreme Court case Atkins v. Virginia and whether the death penalty can be used to punish mentally retarded criminals. Mental retardation was the technical term used in this case to describe individuals who receive between a 17-1stableness. to a 75 or lower on an IQ test, which applies to only about 1 to 3% of the population. And for some background, the death penalty has been around since the 18th century BC, but more

recently, people have petitioned to abolish a death penalty, with advocates arguing that the punishment is irreversible and does little to reduce crime. Currently, 27 states still retain the death penalty, and it is still legal at the federal level and in the military. Now, let's get into the details of this case. Darrell Atkins kidnapped a four, former Air Force serviceman, Eric Nesbitt, in 2002 at a convenience store. Adkins, along with his partner Jones, forced Eric to give them all the money he had, along with $200 from the local ATM. They then took Eric into an isolated place and shot him eight times.

The police captured and questioned Jones and Adkins, but found something peculiar in Adkins' testimony. His testimony was not entirely possible, and they heard from a fellow prisoner that he had confessed to the murder. The prosecution then asked Jones. to testify against Atkins in exchange for his pardon of the death penalty. The Virginia jury convicted Atkins of murder and sentenced him to death. However, the defense psychologist revealed that Atkins had an IQ of 59, which is certainly below

the average IQ and suggested that Atkins might be mentally retarded. A retrial was called due to lab error, and the prosecution called their own psychologist who claimed that Atkins was mentally stable despite the low IQ test. The jury convicted Atkins of murder again and sentenced him to death. death. The Supreme Court reviewed this case because there was a growing consensus among state legislatures that the death penalty was not appropriate for mentally retarded people. So it begs the question. Is the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment as outlined in the Eighth Amendment for mentally retarded people? The court ruled yes. With a six to three decision, the court decided

that the death penalty is indeed a cruel and unusual punishment for mentally retarded individuals. The majority opinion concluded that since people with mental deficiencies are less likely to understand why they are being punished in a certain way or to take lessons from others in similar situations, it did not fulfill the objectives of retribution. The majority also noted that these individuals are less likely to seem sympathetic because of their communicative deficiencies and cognitive isolation from those around them. As a result, they are at a greater risk for receiving the death penalty from a jury that may misinterpret their demeanor and reactions. However, the majority noted that the states are free to set the definition of a mentally retarded individual as they see fit, which gives them some control over who may be eligible for the death penalty. The dissenting judges argued that there really was no national consensus for executing mentally retarded people. Justice Scalia criticized the majority's reliance on foreign laws

and said that the ruling was just a preferred result rather than any objective effort to ascertain the content of an evolving standard of decency. In the conclusion of this trial, Atkinson not. suffer the death penalty and was instead sentenced to life in prison without parole. This case solidified the consensus that the death penalty can be a cruel and unusual punishment in some cases, specifically cases where criminals are mentally retarded. However, this case further prompts the question of if the death penalty itself is a cruel and unusual punishment for all criminals underneath the Eighth Amendment.

Some related cases to this include Ford v. Wainwright, a 1986 case which ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from inflicting the death penalty on a prisoner who is insane, or Roper v. Simmons in 2005, which made it illegal on the federal level to punish someone with the death penalty if they are under the age of 18. We will hopefully get into more detail with these in the future. But I'm afraid that's all we have time for on this episode of In Media Res. We are your host, Hershey and Stephanie. We thank you for joining us, and we'll catch you next time on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM.