The U.S. Supreme Court is currently in the process of determining how states can decide who is intellectually disabled enough to be exempt from receiving the death penalty.
On December 10, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Hamm v. Smith, concerning an Alabama man who has been on death row in that state for more than two decades. Joseph Clifton Smith, who was convicted of serial rape and capital murder in 1997, has taken five IQ tests, with scores ranging from 72 to 78.
In a 2002 case, Atkins v. Virginia, the Court ruled that people who have intellectual disabilities can not be given the death penalty because doing so violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”
Because the state of Alabama defines a person with an intellectual disability as having an IQ of 70 or below, its lawyers argue that Smith’s IQ test results do not meet the state’s threshold for intellectual disability, and that he therefore can be put to death.
But Smith’s lawyers say that Alabama’s definition of intellectual disability is much too narrow and that, given his low IQ scores, additional clinical evidence should be taken into account.
Death penalty abolitionists argue that the Eighth Amendment prevents anybody in the United States from being sentenced to death. But, I imagine, if the courts have determined that it protects some people from being executed by the government, they’ll take that as a step forward, for now.
But Alabama seems determined to narrow that exemption. The Arc, an advocacy organization that “promotes and protects the human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities,” recently filed an amicus brief in the case. The group has summed up its position: “When assessing whether a person on death row has an intellectual disability, neither clinicians nor courts should treat the existence of multiple IQ test scores as [an] excuse to avoid the need for a complete quantitative and qualitative analysis.”
The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association also filed a brief supporting Smith. But, of course, the administration of the squatter currently occupying the White House is supporting Alabama’s position, as are twenty other states.
Killing people who are disabled seems to me like a textbook example of “cruel and unusual punishments” that the Eighth Amendment is designed to prevent. But if the Eighth Amendment doesn’t protect people with intellectual disabilities from being executed by the state, as Alabama claims, then who does it protect?
In addition to establishing competency in criminal cases, the definition of intellectual disability also is relevant in determining eligibility for health care programs, home and community-based services, educational services, and more. Should the Court side with Alabama in Smith’s case, it will essentially refuse to set a standard that requires the application of consistent standards that are based on medical evidence and best practices, which could have far-reaching negative effects for all people with intellectual disabilities. As Jennifer Mathis, deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, has said, it “could have ramifications far beyond the death penalty.”
So let’s hope the Supreme Court has a rare burst of wisdom while deliberating on this case.