That's the title of Paul Campos' post at Salon. It's subtitled, "The Supreme Court said it's illegal to execute the mentally retarded. But Texas has found ways around the ruling." Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Here's the beginning:
The state of Texas likes killing people, and it’s not terribly particular about whom it kills. In recent years Texas has executed people who were severely mentally ill, represented by frighteningly incompetent lawyers, and almost certainly innocent.
The latest innovation in justice Texas-style is illustrated by the state’s plan to execute Marvin Wilson, a mentally retarded prisoner with an IQ of 61. Wilson is scheduled to die by lethal injection on Tuesday, and, if the execution isn’t stopped, he will become the clearest case yet of a mentally retarded person being put to death by the state, despite a decade-old Supreme Court decision barring such judicial killings.
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally retarded violated the Eighth Amendment. The Court left it up to individual states to decide on what procedures to use when determining whether defendants were in fact mentally retarded, or were falsely claiming to be so. (In a characteristically brutal dissent Justice Scalia argued that the inconvenience of sorting out false claims from valid ones was a good reason for not barring such executions.)
Subsequently, almost every capital punishment state that didn’t already have a statute dealing with the issue passed a law telling courts how to handle capital cases involving a claim of mental retardation. But the Texas legislature was too busy with such things as passing laws requiring students to pledge allegiance to the flags of the U.S. and Texas and spend a minute in “silent reflection” (right-wing code for prayer) to ever get around to dealing with the matter.
So it was left to the Texas courts to decide how to interpret the Supreme Court’s directive. The courts proceeded to formulate an extremely vague and manipulable test, which as a practical matter left it up to juries and judges to decide on a case by case basis if a defendant was, as it were, retarded enough to get the benefit of Eighth Amendment protection from execution.
"Aug. 7 execution date set for inmate who claims mental retardation," is by Jordan Smith for the Austin Chronicle.
Continuing a pace of executions that, if it holds, would nearly tie 2010's 17 executions), on Aug. 7 Texas is slated to put to death Marvin Lee Wilson, sent to death row in 1998 for the 1992 murder of a police informant in Beaumont.
Wilson had one previous date with the death chamber, but it was withdrawn after a question was raised about whether Wilson is mentally retarded, which would violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, per a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Initially, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wilson's claim of mental retardation couldn't be heard because his lawyer had missed a deadline for filing an appeal. The decision was widely criticized, and the appeals court ultimately reversed its ruling, allowing Wilson's claims to be raised in federal court. Still, Wilson has not been able to meet the burden for proving mental deficiency, which includes showing that his low IQ existed before he turned 18. In 2004, lawyers presented evidence that Wilson's IQ was 61; a 1971 test measured it at 73, and in 1987 it was recorded as 75. However one of Wilson's current attorneys, Lee Kovarsky, says that the previous tests were not comprehensive, and thus not dispositive of whether Wilson is actually mentally retarded. Wilson has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a stay of execution. At issue is whether the state's test for determining mental retardation is sufficient to satisfy the constitution.
Vibe posts, "Texas Set to Execute A Mentally Disabled Man – Should We Revisit the Death Penalty?"
Marvin Lee Wilson is scheduled to die. Barring a stay of execution, the 54-year-old man will be put to death in Texas on August 7, 2012. After nearly 18-years on death row and several appeals stemming from the 1992 murder of Jerry Robert Williams, an alleged police informant, Wilson’s life may finally come to an end.
But there’s just one problem. With an I.Q. of just 61, Wilson was diagnosed as being mentally retarded by a court-appointed neuropsychologist, leaving many to wonder if it’s ethical to execute him.
Despite his disability, his mental state hasn’t factored into his appeals thus far.
"Texas Judges Doing Brain Surgery," is the post at Simple Justice.
There is hard science. There is soft science. And then there are really heart-warming stories that seem to have some sort of connection to science, in a non-analytical sort of way. Which of these do you suppose the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals prefers?
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