Today's Guardian reports, "John Steinbeck's son criticises Texas over use of fiction in death row cases." It's by Alison Flood.
The son of John Steinbeck has excoriated the state of Texas for using the mental disability of the Nobel prize-winning author's fictional creation Lennie Small to define learning difficulties and thus to justify its execution of Marvin Wilson yesterday.
Although the execution of intellectually disabled prisoners was banned by the US supreme court in 2002, Texas used the discretion allowed to individual states to come up with its own criteria of learning difficulties. These use the character of Lennie, the gentle simpleton who doesn't know his own strength from Steinbeck's 1937 novel Of Mice and Men, as a benchmark, with the court writing: "Texas citizens might agree that Steinbeck's Lennie should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt".
The state executed Wilson yesterday, despite a medical diagnosis that the prisoner, who was put on death row for the 1992 murder of a police informant, was "mentally retarded" with an IQ of 61.
Steinbeck's son Thomas Steinbeck, an author himself, has decried the situation as "insulting, outrageous, ridiculous and profoundly tragic", and said that if his father were still alive "he would be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this way".
"Prior to reading about Wilson's case, I had no idea that the great state of Texas would use a fictional character that my father created to make a point about human loyalty and dedication, ie Lennie Small from Of Mice and Men, as a benchmark to identify whether defendants with intellectual disability should live or die," he said in a statement.
"John Steinbeck's Son Wants No Part of Texas Execution Politics," by Adam Martin at the Atlantic.
The oddest thing about Tuesday night's execution of a convicted Texas murderer with an IQ below the generally accepted competency level was the role the work of John Steinbeck played in the debate around it. Lawyers for the 54-year-old Marvin Wilson, who was convicted of killing a police informant while he was out on bail from a cocaine arrest in 1992, had appealed for a stay of execution on the grounds that Wilson's IQ had been measured at 61, below the generally accepted minimum competency level of 70. On Tuesday night, their request was denied, and Wilson was administered lethal injection. He was declared dead at 6:27 p.m., local time.
Did Texas just execute a man with the mind of Lennie from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men? That's part of the standard Texas's own judiciary uses to determine whether someone is competent to face execution. And John Steinbeck's son Thomas Steinbeck hates it. "Most Texas citizens might agree that Steinbeck's Lennie should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt," The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals wrote in 2004. "But, does a consensus of Texas citizens agree that all persons who might legitimately qualify for assistance under the social services definition of mental retardation be exempt from an otherwise constitutional penalty?"
Scott Lemieux posts, "Supreme Court Permits Execution of Man with IQ of 61," at American Prospect.
However, buried within Atkins was a time bomb. Rather than setting a clear federal standard, Justice Stevens's majority opinion left "to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences." This would not be a major problem in a world where state courts could be counted on to apply Supreme Court holdings protecting criminal defendants in good faith. But in the world we've got, the situation is, of course, more problematic.
Texas ignored the clear implications of Atkins and determined that Wilson was not mentally retarded and hence could be executed despite the precedent. When states ignore the directives of the Supreme Court, however, there is a remedy—the Supreme Court can assert itself and overrule the rogue state courts. In this case, tragically, the Supreme Court has allowed a manifest injustice to proceed. Justice Scalia—who wrote an angry dissent in Atkins—denied Wilson's application for a stay of execution. The petition for a stay was then passed on to the whole Court, which also denied it in an unsigned, two-sentence opinion. The vote on the stay application was not made public, but the most plausible inference is that Anthony Kennedy—who received plaudits for his moderation when he joined with the Atkins majority—voted to allow Texas to execute a man with an IQ of 61.
"Texas executes convicted killer who argued that his low IQ should have spared his life," is the updated AP report, via the Washington Post.
"Texas executes man despite concerns over IQ," by Allan Turner at the Houston Chronicle.
"Texas Goes Through With Wilson Execution," by Jordan Smith at the Austin Chronicle.
"Supreme Court Denies Execution Stay for Marvin Wilson," by Brandi Grissom at the Texas Tribune. It contains a link to the Texas Court of Criminal Appelas 2004 ruling, Ex Parte Briseno.
"Texas executes man despite his low IQ claims," by Cody Stark for the Huntsville Item.
The execution received a great deal of international attention, including, "Texas executes 'mentally impaired' convict," by BBC News.
"Marvin Wilson execution goes ahead in Texas despite claims of low IQ," by Mariya Karimjee at Global Post.
"Texas executes 'mentally impaired' inmate," by Al Jazeera.
Earlier coverage of Marvin Wilson's case begins at the link. Related posts are in the mental retardation index.
As I often point out, mental retardation is now generally referred to as a developmental or intellectual 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