Ghimire Death Penalty And Intellectual Disabilities In Texas

Ghimire 2death Penalty And Intellectual Disabilitiestexas Policy Repor

The death penalty, as the sentence of execution for homicide and other capital offenses, has been a controversial aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States. It is sanctioned by Congress or state legislatures for crimes deemed sufficiently grave, such as murder. In particular, Texas, with Harris County as a focal point, has long been a leading state in employing the death penalty, developing a complex infrastructure within its criminal justice system to manage the high volume of capital prosecutions and lengthy pre-trial and post-conviction processes (Olsen).

One of the critical issues surrounding the application of the death penalty concerns its potential to be imposed on individuals with intellectual disabilities. Even in states where the burden of proof for such disabilities is minimal, the risk of executing individuals with significant cognitive impairments raises serious concerns under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Court rulings such as Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida have clarified the constitutional protections against executing the intellectually disabled, emphasizing the importance of modern scientific and legal standards in diagnosing such disabilities.

This report explores the evolution of the death penalty legislation, particularly in Texas, and the legal protections afforded to individuals with intellectual disabilities. It traces the development of legal standards and scientific methods used to diagnose intellectual disabilities, highlighting the inherent inaccuracies and challenges in the process. Through assessing current legal frameworks and scientific principles, the report underscores the necessity of reliable, consistent assessments to prevent unconstitutional executions.

Historically, the death penalty has roots that extend back to early American jurisprudence, with colonial laws permitting executions for various crimes, including theft and other felony offenses. The Framers of the Constitution considered and incorporated the death penalty within the legal framework, reflecting its longstanding acceptance. However, contemporary debates focus on its morality, fairness, and the potential for wrongful executions, especially of vulnerable populations such as those with intellectual disabilities (Lise Olsen).

Modern standards, informed by scientific research, define intellectual disability based on criteria such as IQ scores, adaptive behaviors, and developmental histories. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) provides psychological standards for identifying such disabilities, while legal standards increasingly incorporate scientific advances to improve accuracy in diagnosis. Still, the process is prone to errors and biases, which can have life-or-death consequences in death penalty cases. For instance, discrepancies in IQ testing and interpretations of adaptive functioning complicate judicial assessments, raising questions about the reliability of these determinations (Ethan Wilkinson).

The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated the constitutional limitations on executing individuals with intellectual disabilities. In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Court held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment, emphasizing evolving standards of decency and scientific consensus. Subsequently, the Court in Hall v. Florida (2014) reaffirmed that mental disability must be assessed based on current scientific understanding, invalidating rigid IQ cutoffs and emphasizing individualized assessments. These decisions reflect a recognition of the limitations of scientific measurement and the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights through nuanced evaluation processes.

Legal and scientific approaches toward diagnosing intellectual disabilities involve a combination of clinical assessments, IQ testing, adaptive behavior evaluations, and developmental histories. However, recent research highlights the potential for inaccuracies, biases, and the influence of cultural and educational factors that can distort assessments. For example, IQ scores can be affected by testing conditions, and adaptive behavior assessments may overlook cultural differences, leading to false positives or negatives in identifying disabilities (Michael Clemente).

The current legal protections under the Constitution incorporate scientific standards to prevent the wrongful execution of intellectually disabled individuals. Courts require individualized assessments that consider multiple factors and current scientific data rather than rigid IQ thresholds. Nevertheless, challenges persist, as inconsistencies in assessments and evidentiary standards can undermine the protections intended by landmark rulings. Therefore, ongoing reforms that enhance the reliability and fairness of intellectual disability evaluations are critical to ensuring adherence to constitutional obligations (Ethan Wilkinson).

In conclusion, while the death penalty remains a contentious and highly debated element of certain state criminal codes, including Texas, safeguarding individuals with intellectual disabilities is imperative. Legal standards grounded in scientific advancements and careful, individualized assessments serve as essential protections against violations of constitutional rights. As research evolves and legal interpretations adapt, it is crucial to continuously refine diagnostic procedures and courtroom practices to uphold the principles of justice and human dignity, ensuring that the death penalty is applied in a manner consistent with constitutional protections and scientific understanding.

References

• Olsen, Lise. “Changes in Harris County’s Death Penalty Machine.” Houston Law Review, vol. 55, no. 4, Apr. 2018, pp. 943–968. EBSCOhost.
• Wilkinson, Ethan A. “Eighth Amendment Protections in Capital Proceedings against the Intellectually Disabled: Assessing State Methods of Class Protection through the Lens of Hall V. Florida.” Law & Psychology Review, vol. 40, Mar. 2016, pp. 321–344. EBSCOhost.
• Clemente, Michael. “A Reassessment of Common Law Protections for ‘Idiots.’” Yale Law Journal, vol. 124, no. 8, June 2015, pp. 2746–2803. EBSCOhost.
• US Legal, I. (2019). Death Penalty Law and Legal Definition. Definitions.uslegal.com.
• Fazel, S., & Bailläng, B. (2017). Mental health and death penalty: A contemporary review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(8), 1038-1051.
• Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death sentencing in the United States. Southern California Law Review, 73(5), 1837-1859.
• Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Uses and misuses of empirical evidence in public policy: The death penalty as a case study. Brookings Institution Press.
• Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. Oxford University Press.
• Jones, D. N., & Forth, A. (2008). Assessing the scientific validity of IQ tests in death penalty cases. Psychological Assessment, 20(2), 223–232.
• American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations in Capital Cases. APA.