Atkins v. VirginiaAtkins v. Virginia, 536 , 536 U.S.U.S. 304304 (2002), is a case in whi (2002), is a case in whi

ch the ch the Supreme Court of the UnitSupreme Court of the United Statesed States ruled 6-3 that executing t ruled 6-3 that executing the he mentally retardedmentally retarded viola violates the tes the Eighth AmendmentEighth Amendment

's ban on 's ban on cruel and unusual punishcruel and unusual punishmentsments

..

The caseThe case

• Around midnight on August 16, 1996, following a Around midnight on August 16, 1996, following a day spent together drinking alcohol and smokinday spent together drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, 18 year old Daryl Atkins and his accg marijuana, 18 year old Daryl Atkins and his accomplice, William Jones, walked to a nearby convomplice, William Jones, walked to a nearby convenience store where they abducted Eric Nesbitt, enience store where they abducted Eric Nesbitt, an airman from nearby an airman from nearby Langley Air Force BaseLangley Air Force Base. . Unsatisfied with the $60 they found in his wallet, Unsatisfied with the $60 they found in his wallet, Atkins and Jones drove Nesbitt in his own vehiclAtkins and Jones drove Nesbitt in his own vehicle to a nearby e to a nearby ATMATM and forced him to withdraw a and forced him to withdraw a further $200. In spite of Nesbitt's pleas, the two afurther $200. In spite of Nesbitt's pleas, the two abductors then drove him to an isolated location, bductors then drove him to an isolated location, where he was shot eight times, killing him.where he was shot eight times, killing him.

• Footage of Atkins and Jones in the vehicle with Footage of Atkins and Jones in the vehicle with Nesbitt were captured on the ATM's Nesbitt were captured on the ATM's CCTVCCTVcamecamera, which was of the two men with Nesbitt in thra, which was of the two men with Nesbitt in the middle and leaning across Jones to withdraw e middle and leaning across Jones to withdraw money, and further forensic evidence implicatimoney, and further forensic evidence implicating the two were found in Nesbitt's abandoned vng the two were found in Nesbitt's abandoned vehicle. The two suspects were quickly tracked dehicle. The two suspects were quickly tracked down and arrested. In custody, each man claimeown and arrested. In custody, each man claimed that the other had pulled the trigger. Atkins' vd that the other had pulled the trigger. Atkins' version of the events, however, was found to conersion of the events, however, was found to contain a number of inconsistencies. Doubts concetain a number of inconsistencies. Doubts concerning Atkins's testimony were strengthened whrning Atkins's testimony were strengthened when a cell-mate claimed that Atkins had confesseen a cell-mate claimed that Atkins had confessed to him that he had shot Nesbitt. A deal of life id to him that he had shot Nesbitt. A deal of life imprisonment was negotiated with Jones in retumprisonment was negotiated with Jones in return for his full testimony against Atkins. The jury rn for his full testimony against Atkins. The jury decided that Jones' version of events was the mdecided that Jones' version of events was the more coherent and credible, and convicted Atkins ore coherent and credible, and convicted Atkins of of capital murdercapital murder..

The rulingThe ruling

• The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution foThe Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishments. In the ruling it was strbids cruel and unusual punishments. In the ruling it was stated that, unlike other provisions of the Constitution, the Eiated that, unlike other provisions of the Constitution, the Eighth Amendment should be interpreted in light of the "evolghth Amendment should be interpreted in light of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a matuving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." The best evidence on this score was determinring society." The best evidence on this score was determined to be the judgment of state legislatures. Accordingly, the ed to be the judgment of state legislatures. Accordingly, the Court had previously found that the death penalty was inapCourt had previously found that the death penalty was inappropriate for the crime of propriate for the crime of raperape in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), or for those convicted of felony murder who neit584 (1977), or for those convicted of felony murder who neither themselves killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill iher themselves killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982). The Court found tn Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982). The Court found that the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the dehat the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty in these cases because "most of the legislatures tath penalty in these cases because "most of the legislatures that have recently addressed the matter" have rejected the dhat have recently addressed the matter" have rejected the death penalty for these offenders, and the Court will generalleath penalty for these offenders, and the Court will generally defer to the judgments of those bodies.y defer to the judgments of those bodies.

• The Court then described how a national consensus that The Court then described how a national consensus that the mentally retarded should not be executed had emergthe mentally retarded should not be executed had emerged. In 1986, Georgia was the first state to outlaw the execed. In 1986, Georgia was the first state to outlaw the execution of the mentally retarded. Congress followed two yution of the mentally retarded. Congress followed two years later, and the next year Maryland joined these two jears later, and the next year Maryland joined these two jurisdictions. Thus, when the Court confronted the issue urisdictions. Thus, when the Court confronted the issue in Penry in 1989, the Court could not say that a national in Penry in 1989, the Court could not say that a national consensus against executing the mentally retarded had consensus against executing the mentally retarded had emerged. Over the next twelve years, nineteen more statemerged. Over the next twelve years, nineteen more states exempted the mentally retarded from capital punishes exempted the mentally retarded from capital punishment under their laws, bringing the total number of statment under their laws, bringing the total number of states to twenty-one, plus the federal government. While thes to twenty-one, plus the federal government. While there are 50 states, 19 don't allow the death penalty under ere are 50 states, 19 don't allow the death penalty under any circumstance, making 31 a clear majority of the deatany circumstance, making 31 a clear majority of the death penalty states. In light of the "consistency of direction h penalty states. In light of the "consistency of direction of change" toward a prohibition on the execution of the of change" toward a prohibition on the execution of the mentally retarded, and the relative rarity of such executimentally retarded, and the relative rarity of such executions in states that still allow it, the Court proclaimed that ons in states that still allow it, the Court proclaimed that a "national consensus has developed against it." The Coua "national consensus has developed against it." The Court, however, left it to individual states to make the difficrt, however, left it to individual states to make the difficult decision regarding what determines mental retardatiult decision regarding what determines mental retardation.on.

來源來源 ::• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v.

_Virginia_Virginia