- Educational Curricula
- Executions Database
- Law Review
- New Voices
- Public Opinion
- Related Web Sites
- State by State Database
- State Information
- Student Resources
- Testimony, Resolutions, Statements & Speeches
- Weekly Newsletter
- Death Penalty Quiz
- More Resources
Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty
Introduction to Intellectual Disability (formerly Mental Retardation)
Atkins v. Virginia: Summary of Supreme Court decision exempting those with "mental retardation" from death penalty
Hall v. Florida: Summary of Supreme Court decision finding Florida's standards for intellectual disability too rigid
The Case of Warren Hill (Georgia)
Executions of Defendants with Intellectual Disability Since 1976, but prior to Atkins
Definitions of "mental retardation" (intellectual disability) by state
State Statutes exempting those with mental retardation from the death penalty:
Model Legislation: "Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty: A Guide to State Legislative Issues" - for states to comply with the Atkins ruling, with commentary by Professor James Ellis, Univ. of New Mexico Law School.
News and Developments - Current Year
News and Developments - Previous Years:
Intellectual Disability, formerly referred to as "mental retardation,"** is characterized by "significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior, which covers many everyday social and practical skills. This disability originates before the age of 18." (Source: The American Association for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) that the execution of those with mental retardation (intellectual disability) is unconstitutional. (See below). This condition is different from mental illness. See DPIC's page on Mental Illness for more information.
**Note: "Intellectual Disability" is now the preferred term for describing significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. However, many court decisions, laws, and other official documents were written using the prior designation of “mental retardation.” The shift to the new terminology was given impetus when the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) changed its name to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) in 2007. AAIDD has taken the position that the meanings of the two terms are identical, “Mental retardation and intellectual disability are two names for the same thing. But intellectual disability is gaining currency as the preferred term.” DPIC will endeavor to use the term "intellectual disability," while recognizing the use of "mental retardation” in court decisions and other quoted materials.
Atkins v. Virginia: The U.S. Supreme Court Declares the Execution of Persons with "Mental Retardation" Unconstitutional
On June 20, 2002, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling ending the execution of those with intellectual disability. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court held that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel unusual punishment to execute death row inmates with "mental retardation". The decision reflects the national consensus which has formed on this issue. (Associated Press, June 20, 2002). Read the opinion. See also, DPIC's Press Release.
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld (5-4) the constitutionality of executing those with intellectual disability in Penry v. Lynaugh (492 U.S. 302). The Court said "mental retardation" should be a mitigating factor to be considered by the jury during sentencing. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that a "national consensus" had not developed against executing those with "mental retardation."
At the time, only two states, Maryland and Georgia, prohibited such executions. Between the Penry and Atkins decisions, 16 additional states enacted laws prohibiting the execution of the "mentally retarded." The federal death penalty statute also forbids such executions. Prior to Atkins v. Virginia, eighteen states plus the federal government did not allow the execution of those with "mental retardation": AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, MD, MO, NE, NM, NY*, NC, SD, TN, WA, and U.S. (*except for murder by a prisoner) Read summaries of the states' criteria for establishing and defining "mental retardation".]
See also, Professor James Ellis's model legislation and explanation for states to comply with the Atkins ruling: "Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty: A Guide to State Legislative Issues." Mental health experts have pointed out that those with intellectual disability are characterized by suggestibility and their willingness to please can lead them to confess - sometimes falsely - to capital crimes. In 1989, the American Bar Association established a policy opposing the execution of those with "mental retardation." The ABA held that execution of such individuals is unacceptable in a civilized society, irrespective of their guilt or innocence. In 1997, the continued imposition of the death penalty on those with intellectual disability and on juveniles contributed to the ABA's call for a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty.
Disparities in Determinations of Intellectual Disability
A recent law review article reported wide variations among states in exempting defendants with intellectual disability from the death penalty. Professor John Blume (l.) of Cornell Law School, along with three co-authors, analyzed claims filed under the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) against executing defendants with intellectual disability (formerly, "mental retardation"). Overall, from 2002 through 2013, only about 7.7% (371) of death row inmates or capital defendants have raised claims of intellectual disability. The total "success" rate for such claims was 55%. In North Carolina, the success rate was 82%, and in Mississippi 57%. However, in Georgia (where Warren Hill was recently executed), the success rate for those claiming this disability was only 11%, and in Florida, the success rate was zero. The authors found that states that significantly deviated from accepted clinical methods for determining intellectual disability, such as Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Texas, had the lowest success rates. To preserve equal protection under the law, the authors recommended the Supreme Court strike down aberrant practices in isolated states, just as it struck down Florida's strict IQ cutoff.
(J. Blume, et al., "A TALE OF TWO (AND POSSIBLY THREE) ATKINS: INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TWELVE YEARS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT'S CREATION OF A CATEGORICAL BAR," 23 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 393 (2014)).
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (AAIDD-FORMERLY AAMR) ANNOUNCES THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY, AND RENAMES “MENTAL RETARDATION” IN ITS UPCOMING CLASSIFICATION AND TERMINOLOGY MANUAL
The group of AAIDD experts responsible for defining the condition of intellectual disability to the world now explains the move away from the term “mental retardation” to the term intellectual disability in an article published in the April issue of the journal, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. “At the heart of this shift is the understanding that this term covers the same population of individuals who were diagnosed previously with mental retardation in number, kind, level, type, and duration of the disability and the need of people with this disability for individualized services and supports,” explain Robert Schalock et al. in “The Renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability.” The article cites the new definition for intellectual disability and the assumptions on which it is based, although the official 11th edition of the AAIDD definition Manual is expected to be published in the year 2009. (Posted April 11, 2007).
"Timing Of IQ Test Can Be A Life Or Death Matter." Science Daily Magazine, October 6, 2003 - Full text of a news release from Science Daily Magazine about the implications on death row inmates who are given IQ tests in years in which alterations to results are made to re-establish the mean score at 100.
"An Empirical Look at Atkins v. Virginia and Its Application in Capital Cases John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson and Christopher Seeds; Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 76:625; Spring 2009 - States: "We found 234 cases adjudicating the substance of Atkins claims, which implies that about seven percent of all death row inmates have filed Atkins claims. . . .Nearly forty percent of all defendants who allege mental retardation have, in fact, proved it."
The report, Beyond Reason: The Death Penalty and Offenders with Mental Retardation, provides numerous examples of persons who have been sentenced to death despite their profound intellectual limitations.
"The Penry Penalty: Capital Punishment and Offenders with Mental Retardation" by Emily Fabrycki Reed; Lanham: University Press of America (1993).
"The Criminal Justice System and Mental Retardation: Defendants and Victims" by Ronald W. Conley, Ruth Luckasson, and George N. Bouthilet; Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. (1992).
See also Mental Illness.
Last Updated February 2, 2015