Death Penalty & The Mentally Retarded Offender

Paper Summary:

Argues that mentally retarded offenders should not be put to death. Cites opinions of various groups against the death penalty for convicted offenders with a significant sub-average level of intellectual ability. Alternative punishments. Refers to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that decided that executing mentally retarded individuals did not violate the Constitution.

From the Paper:

" In 1989, the United States Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as the Court) decided (by a vote of 5 to 4) in the case of Penry v. Lynaugh (492 U.S. 584) that executing individuals with clinically diagnosed mental retardation did not comprise a violation of the Eighth Amendment (Mental retardation and, 2001). The Court held that instead, mental retardation should be a mitigating factor considered by the jury during sentencing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing on behalf of the majority of the Court, stated that a "national consensus" had not as yet developed regarding a prohibition on such executions, given that only two states (Maryland and Georgia) prohibited such executions in 1989 (Mental retardation and., 2001). Since then, however, 16 more states have enacted..."

More papers on Death Penalty & The Mentally Retarded Offender:

• Argumentative Essay # 62746 : "Death Penalty for Juvenile Offenders"
• Argumentative Essay # 9353 : "Death Penalty: The Pros and Cons"
• Argumentative Essay # 22969 : "Capital Punishment for the Mentally Retarded"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: