Is sentencing execution upon a mentally retarded individual unconstitutional? This is a question that has recently been answered by the United States Supreme Court. According to Justice John Paul Stevens executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional. These issues were stemmed from a recent trial in Virginia that dealt with a mentally retarded male who was sentenced to death. There are conflicting opinions on this issue, that have to do with the interpretation of the eighth amendment the moral views of the supreme court justices, and the citizens of the United States.

One might ask, “What is the definition of mentally retarded?” According to an article written by the Dallas Morning News titled “Justices to Review Death Penalty for Mentally Retarded Inmates”, states currently use a test containing three questions to determine whether a person is mentally retarded. The first question; is the person’s IQ less than 70? (An average person’s IQ is 100.) The second question; was mental retardation diagnosed by the age of 18? This is to ensure that a prisoner wouldn’t try to act as if he were mentally retarded to get out of being executed. Finally it nee

After a lot of research I feel that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional. I feel that the eighth amendment was written to protect the innocent and the unknowing. It is unfair to kill someone who doesn’t know what they are doing is wrong. I think if someone is this mentally unstable, the responsibility should be on the United States government to protect him and prevent these untimely deaths of the innocent.

According to the American Law Institute’s model Penal Code states that, “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” (Curriden, 2002, p. 117)

Justice Antonin Scalia supports executing the mentally retarded, and feels that if there is a problem with unfair trials because the mentally retarded person is unable to defend themselves feels that, “if this unsupported claim has any substance to it (which I doubt), it might support a due process claim in criminal prosecutions of the mentally retarded.”(Shultz, 2002, p. 5)

The third argument for those who support the death penalty is that most people mentally retarded or not know that murder is wrong. If that can be established in trial then they should be tried as a normal person. If they committed a crime as horrific as murder then there should be no other option. (Ashraf 2002)

Some topics in this essay:
Antonin Scalia, John Steinbeck, Paul Stevens, Retarded Inmates”, James Ellis, Penal Code, mentally retarded, Atkins Virginia, Eric Nesbitt, Supreme Court, , executing mentally, executing mentally retarded, supreme court, death penalty, retarded unconstitutional, mentally retarded unconstitutional, cruel unusual, cruel unusual punishment, eighth amendment, unusual punishment, shultz 2002, atkins virginia, justice john paul, penalty mentally retarded,