|
Drawing
the Line: Execution of the Mentally Retarded
March 28, 2002
By Katherine C. Markham
Where do we, as a nation, draw the line? For the second
time in less than a decade, the United States Supreme Court
is faced with a plethora of questions of morality and justice
as they work to decide the outcome of the case of Daniel
Atkins v. the state of Virginia. This case is one that
calls into question the constitutionality of the state of
Virginia’s decision to execute Daniel Atkins, a mentally retarded
inmate.
As the Supreme Court justices deliberate this case, the American
public needs to think seriously about where we draw the line.
National consensus seems to be generally set against the execution
of minors, so why should it be in any way acceptable to execute
criminals who are mentally retarded and function at child-like
levels? Members of the psychological community hold that even
at age 16 or 17 a person’s ability to distinguish right from
wrong may not be fully developed. Taking this into consideration,
there should be no question that a person even with mild retardation
(who, according to psychological standards would function
at best at a sixth grade level) is not going to have a complete
comprehension of society’s accepted definitions of “right”
and “wrong.”
This ability to know the difference between right and wrong
is only part of the issue at hand when we talk about the execution
of mentally retarded individuals. How can we, as Americans,
truly serve justice, when we are sending people to death row
that may not even understand, or have the capacity to understand,
the intricate workings of our justice system. Much like a
minor, a mentally retarded individual (because of their diminished
capacity to function at normal levels) will more than likely
have a diminished capacity to defend themselves in a trial,
much less will they understand the scope of all that is involved
in trials, charges, and sentencing of criminals. To serve
the death penalty as the sentence to a criminal who does not
mentally have the capacity to participate and act in his or
her own interest in a trial is unfair to say the least.
While our nation’s practice of executing criminals is most
assuredly going to continue (much to the dismay of people
who feel that killing is wrong even when done by the government
in the name of “justice”) it is time we as a nation revisited
our collective definitions of what we consider morally right
and wrong. Now is the time for the Supreme Court and every
citizen to rethink what we consider to be “cruel and unusual.”
Surely we can’t deny justice to mentally retarded people who
are unable to demand it for themselves.
Katherine C. Markham is a high school student with a mission
- to end injustice in a nation that claims to love "justice"
yet can't seem to serve it.
|
