U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Penry v. Lynaugh: "Idiocy" and the Framers' Intent Doctrine

NCJ Number
129953
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 16 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1990) Pages: 315-337
Author(s)
E L Shwartz
Date Published
1990
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Penry v. Lynaugh in 1989 focuses on the Court's determination that the eighth amendment of the Constitution allows the execution of a mentally retarded defendant and presents historical evidence that under common law the mentally retarded would not receive death sentences.
Abstract
The analysis notes that the common-law notion of "idiocy" during the 17th and 18th century is identical to the modern diagnosis of mental retardation and that the punishment of "idiots" was prohibited under common law. Applying an approach based on the intent of the framers of the Constitution would therefore produce a conclusion that mentally retarded individuals should not be executed for crimes. Nevertheless, Justice O'Connor's statement that a mentally retarded individual could possess the requisite culpability for a death sentence is difficult to counter, in view of activists' efforts to obtain societal integration for mentally retarded individuals. Finally, although the execution of the mentally retarded does not serve the required penological goals of the death penalty, it is likely to continue unless State law prohibits it. 141 footnotes

Downloads

No download available

Availability