|
Make Sure California Doesn't Execute the Mentally Retarded
The ACLU is unequivocally opposed to the death penalty, and one of many egregious aspects of the death penalty system in America has been the execution of the mentally retarded, individuals who are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions and who are frequently led into making false confessions. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that executing mentally retarded people constitutes cruel and unusal punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But California has yet to act on this decision, so there is no clear system in place to prevent the execution of the mentally retarded. Senator Burton's legislation, SB 3, fills this gap, setting up clear, balanced procedures to ensure that the mentally retarded will not be executed in California.
Dear [ Decision Maker ] , Please support for SB 3 (Burton), which sets forth the statutory framework to implement the U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Atkins" outlawing the execution of the mentally retarded. SB 3 establishes fair, procedural mechanisms to assure that the mentally retarded will not be executed in California. The definition of mental retardation is taken directly from California law in existence for twenty years and is consistent with the "Atkins" decision. The pretrial proceeding to determine mentally retardation is consistent with the approach taken in other states. The pretrial process makes sense for numerous reasons, perhaps most importantly, if the defendant has mental retardation, and therefore is ineligible for the death penalty, the State saves the enormous cost of an unnecessary capital trial.
It is time for the California legislature to act and make sure once and for all that the death penalty is not imposed on those with mental retardation. I urge an "AYE" vote on SB 3.
Sincerely, |
Campaign Launched: |
| Background Information |
What does SB 3 do?
SB 3 establishes a clear definition of mental retardation by drawing on the definition of mental retardation already existing in California's penal code. This definition requires that, to be considered mentally retarded, a person must have both subaverage intellectual functioning demonstrated prior to age 18 and significant limitations in adaptive skills. The definition is consistent with the definitions of mental retardation used by the American Association of Mental Retardation and the American Psychiatric Association.
In addition to establishing a clear definition, SB 3 requires that the matter of mental retardation be considered prior to the trial. There are two reasons for this: it prevents juries from being biased by the crime itself when making the separate decision about a defendant's fitness to face the death penalty, and it saves counties and the state the expense and time of a capital trial in cases where it is not appropriate.
Why is it necessary to pass a law if the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional?
In Atkins, the U.S. Supreme Court left it to states to determine individually how to define mental retardation and when to make that determination in individual cases. There are many ways that this decision could be interpreted, some of which function more like loopholes than safeguards and contradict the spirit of the decision that such executions are cruel and unusual. That's why it's important to adopt a law that establishes a fair, thorough, and untainted process and uses a definition that gets to the heart of
Why is it wrong to execute people who are mentally retarded?
People who are mentally retarded cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, and they are vulnerable to manipulation by co-defendants and coercion of false, self-incriminating testimony.
Read the Human Rights Watch and Death Penalty information Center reports and news linked below for examples.
Where can I find more information about this legislation and about this issue?
For a detailed report, analysis, and examples, read Human Rights Watch's 2001 report.
For a collection of information, visit the Death Penalty Information Center's death penalty and mental retardation section.
To read the text of the bill or analysis of it, visit California's legislative information web site page on SB 3.
To read about why states should adopt clear procedures for defining and determining mental retardation in capital cases, read this Death Penalty Information Center analysis.
To get involved in the California effort to institute a moratorium on executions, visit Death Penalty Focus.
