On the recordJune 25, 2002
last week the Supreme Court ruled, in a case called Atkins v. Virginia, that the execution of mentally retarded persons violates the eighth amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court thereby reversed its 1989 holding in Penry v. Lynaugh, which it decided at a time when only two States with death penalty laws forbade the execution of the mentally retarded. In Atkins, the Court noted that in the 13 years following Penry, 16 additional States have enacted laws banning such executions. In addition, 12 States do not have the death penalty at all, meaning that a total of 30 States do not permit the execution of the mentally retarded. Therefore, the Court concluded that a ``national consensus'' has emerged against the execution of the mentally retarded. Because the Court interprets the eighth amendment in accordance with ``evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,'' the Court concluded that the emergence of this national consensus rendered such executions unconstitutional. I applaud the Supreme Court's decision. And I do so not from the perspective of one who opposes the death penalty in all its applications. Rather, I am a supporter of the death penalty. I believe that, when used appropriately, it is an effective crime-fighting tool and a deterrent. Indeed, I am the author of two major Federal crime laws that extended the availability of the death penalty.
Source
govinfo.gov




