NCJ Number
123630
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 80 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1990) Pages: 1121-1235
Date Published
1990
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the United States Supreme Court's 1989 decision upholding the death penalty for a mentally retarded offender in Texas concludes that the decision was consistent with the judicial policies of providing individualized treatment of the capital defendant but that the death penalty for a mentally retarded person is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited under the Eighth Amendment.
Abstract
The case of Penry v. Lynaugh involved the brutal rape and murder of a woman by a mentally retarded man who confessed to committing the crime while on parole for another rape charge. The jury decided that Penry was competent to stand trial. The Supreme Court decided that the Texas law regarding the death penalty must allow a sentencer to take into consider all relevant mitigating circumstances. This decision avoids the application of the death penalty in an arbitrary or capricious manner. However, the Court should have recognized that the mentally retarded criminal lacks the degree of culpability proportionate to the death penalty. Thus, it should reject capital punishment for the mentally retarded criminal rather than risk sentencing a defendant to a cruel and unusual punishment, because the death penalty is unique in its finality and harshness. This and other recent cases show that Justice O'Connor is a crucial swing vote on capital punishment issues and that the Court is still unable to develop a consensus on issues related to the death penalty. 183 footnotes.