Today's Dallas Morning News carries the editorial, "Mental retardation and the death penalty."
Bruce Carneil Webster is a brutal thug, one of three whose pursuit of two men who had stiffed them on a drug deal ended with the kidnapping, rape and hellish murder of a 16-year-old honor student.
Shed no tears for Webster: He beat the Arlington girl with a shovel, dragged her into a grave in Arkansas, stripped her, doused her with gasoline and burned her alive.
He should never see the outside of a prison.
Nonetheless, new evidence about his mental capacity, uncovered 13 years after his conviction, raises serious questions about whether Webster, who indisputably committed the crime, can be legally put to death.
The U.S. Supreme Court should review Webster's case, and the Texas Legislature should adopt clearer procedures to determine the mental capacity of defendants accused of capital crimes. To do otherwise would be a serious breach of justice.
And:
This newspaper would like to see the state Legislature pass measures that would allow a judge or separate jury to hear evidence to determine whether a defendant is mentally retarded. And the Supreme Court would be wise to intervene to make sure a man is not executed despite evidence showing mental retardation. Even in the most reprehensible and revolting crimes, the Constitution still applies.
Earlier coverage is here. Related
posts are in the mental
retardation index. Mental retardation is now generally referred
to as a developmental
disability. Because it has a specific meaning with respect to
capital cases, I continue to use the older term.
More on Atkins v.
Virginia, the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling banning the execution of
those with mental retardation, is via Oyez.
Comments