Using a Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense - Term Paper Example

Many States have had mitigation statutes concerning the death penalty for persons with mental disabilities. Courts have experienced substantial difficulties in determining the constitutional necessities in this regard.

The Atkins v. Virginia (00-8452) 536 U.S. 304 (2002) 260 Va. 375, 534 S. E. 2d 312 case, is an example of a case that addresses the issue of the death penalty, as a cruel and abnormal punishment and a violation of the Eighth amendment imposed upon a mentally retarded individual. Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abducting, robbing, and murdering Eric Nesbitt. During the hearing of Atkins’ sentence, the presented evidence was that Atkins was mentally retarded. The jury gave Atkins a death sentence. The Virginia Supreme Court ordered the second hearing, but Atkins was again given the death penalty; which the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case (Carmen, Ritter, & Witt, 2008).

The petitioner, Daryl Renard Atkins argued that procedures allowing the infliction of the death penalty on the mentally retarded individuals notwithstanding their diminished accountability violated the Eighth amendment. Atkins further argued that by executing a mentally retarded individual, the decency standards were offended. The Virginia State argued that any person having a criminal responsibility was liable for execution regardless of their mental status (Carmen, Ritter, & Witt, 2008).

Justice Stevens in his ruling realized that there was a consensus on the execution prohibition of mentally retarded individuals. According to Justice Stevens, it was important to consider the path followed in changing the legislation toward the prohibition. Justice Stevens also noted that the prohibition of the death penalty relied on death penalty jurisprudence. Chief justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Thomas, agreed to the court’s reliance on the foreign laws, which prohibited the death penalty for mentally retarded persons. Rehnquist found out that when sentencing, jury information was considered in determining contemporary values. The information and State legislation should be the major factor to determine contemporary values (Carmen, Ritter, & Witt, 2008).