Today's Harrisburg Patriot-News reports, "Who should decide a defendant's mental capacity?" It's written by Kari Andren.
Eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people with mental retardation cannot be given the death penalty.
But the ruling left it up to each state to determine how to handle such cases, and Pennsylvania has yet to do so.
Lawmakers, advocates and law enforcement officials clash on a key issue:
Should a judge determine if a person lacks the mental capacity for the death penalty, or should the jury decide?
The debate resumed Monday at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The panel heard arguments on a bill before state lawmakers that would give judges the power to make the decision before the case goes to trial.
The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Mary Jo White, R-Venango County, was passed by the state Senate last summer.
Under the bill, to be considered mentally retarded, the person must score low on IQ tests, have significant limitations in adapting to society and must have been diagnosed with the disability by age 18.
White said at Monday's hearing that it doesn't make sense to go through the expense of a death-penalty trial only to have a person deemed ineligible for the punishment.
And:
Bill Burke, a board member of The Arc of Pennsylvania, said juries are not qualified to make the clinical diagnosis that someone is mentally retarded. He said it would also take time and money to educate juries.
"A person's mental retardation makes them vulnerable during the trial itself, which is why it is important to resolve the question of capital punishment before the trial commences," Burke said.
Many states determine mental capacity prior to trial, said Jim Ellis, a University of New Mexico law professor and the attorney who argued the U.S. Supreme Court case in 2002. The Florida Supreme Court overturned a state law that determined mental retardation post-trial, he said.
The article notes that the committee took no action on the bill. Texas also has failed to address the Atkins ruling through state legislation. Related articles are in the mental retardation index. More on Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling banning the execution of those with mental retardation, is via Oyez.
Ashley Manning writes, "Bill takes aim at racial bias on death row," for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The Rev. Dr. Roger Thomas of Ambridge, who served on a state panel that looked at problems in the state's criminal justice system, is concerned about what he sees as racial bias in sentences handed down in capital punishment cases.
Too many of the prisoners who end up on Pennsylvania's death row are minorities, especially African-Americans, says the pastor, who is white.
In 2003, Gov. Ed Rendell chose Rev. Thomas as a member of the committee that spent four years studying the criminal justice system. It came up with data that Rev. Thomas thinks shows a definite racial bias regarding the sentencing of prisoners in death-penalty cases.
To combat this, he contends that a new law, called the Racial Justice Act, should be adopted.
Rev. Thomas gave statistics on the makeup of Pennsylvania's death row population: A total of 220 inmates, of whom 130 (or 59 percent) are black, 70 (or 32 percent) are white, 18 (or 8 percent) are Hispanic and two are Asian.
But also according to statistics developed by Rev. Thomas' panel, the Committee for Analysis and Reform of Our Criminal System, 53 percent of homicides are committed by blacks, 45 percent by whites and 2 percent by other ethnic or racial groups.
Pennsylvania has the fourth-largest death row population in the U.S. but has the second-highest number of minorities, at 68 percent, just behind Texas, at 69 percent. Whites make up 32 percent of death row inmates but commit 45 percent of the homicides.
And:
Concerned that the death row numbers are skewed against minorities, Rev. Thomas went to Rep. Robert Matzie, D-Ambridge, who introduced the Racial Justice Act, also known as House Bill 1996.
Its aim is to address racial disparities in sentencing in capital cases. The proposed law would allow defendants in minority racial groups to introduce evidence of racial bias against them on the part of members of the criminal justice system. Defendants or their lawyers could bring up evidence of bias either before trial or at a post-conviction hearing, to try to have the presiding judge give them a life sentence without parole instead of a death sentence.
Existing inmates could bring a claim of racial bias within one year of the act taking effect.
Defendants arguing their cases would have to offer information about similar capital cases, such as where defendants of another race committed similar crimes but received a lesser sentence.
Kentucky and North Carolina have both enacted similar laws. Last week was the filing deadline for inmates in that state to file under the Racial Justice Act. Related posts are in the race index, the North Carolina RJA, here.
Comments