Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:07:37.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scientific and the Social in Implementing Atkins v. Virginia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Natalie A. Pifer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) categorically exempts intellectually disabled defendants from execution, yet some constitutionally suspect punishments suggest a gap between law and practice. This article moves beyond critiquing Atkins' formal implementation to provide a decentered analysis of the Atkins gap focused on the category of intellectual disability. It explores how drawing boundaries around intellectual disability in capital cases requires law to grapple with fluid scientific and social constructs through a study of how courts operationalize intellectual disability in capital cases. It draws from literatures considering the construction of intellectual disability and law's relationship to the scientific and the social and finds that this intersection first enables a conceptual disconnect between scientific and legal constructions of intellectual disability and, second, invites the use of stereotypes to inform the category. These processes undermine Atkins'—and other categorical exemptions'—ability to functionally limit extreme punishments and also reveal law as mutually constitutive.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , Fall 2016 , pp. 1036 - 1060
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing.Google Scholar
Aronson, Jay D., and Cole, Simon A. 2009. Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the Debate Over Capital Punishment in the United States. Law & Social Inquiry 34 (3): 603–33.Google Scholar
Bandes, Susan. 2008. Framing Wrongful Convictions. Utah Law Review 5 (1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Barger, Judith. M. 2008. Avoiding Atkins v. Virginia: How States Are Circumventing Both the Letter and the Spirit of the Court's Mandate. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 13:215–38.Google Scholar
Blume, John H., Johnson, Sheri Lynn, and Seeds, Christopher. 2008a. An Empirical Look at Atkins v. Virginia and Its Application in Capital Cases. Tennessee Law Review 76:625–39Google Scholar
Blume, John H. 2008b. Of Atkins and Men: Deviations from Clinical Definitions of Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases. Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy 18:689–733.Google Scholar
Blume, John H. 2010. Implementing (or Nullifying) Atkins?: The Impact of State Procedural Choices on Outcome in Capital Cases Where Intellectual Disability Is at Issue. Unpublished Manuscript, Cornell Law School.Google Scholar
Bonnie, Richard J., and Gustafson, Katherine. 2007. The Challenge of Implementing Atkins v. Virginia: How Legislatures and Courts Can Promote Accurate Assessments and Adjudications of Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases. University of Richmond Law Review 41:811–60.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty. 2010. Invitation to Law and Society: An Introduction to the Study of Real Law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carbado, Devon W. 2009. Yellow by Law. California Law Review 97 (3): 633–92.Google Scholar
Cassel, Elaine. 2004. Justice Deferred, Justice Denied: The Practical Effect of Atkins v. Virginia . Widener Law Review 11:51–58.Google Scholar
Castles, Katherine. 2004. “Nice, Average Americans”: Postwar Parents' Groups and the Defense of the Normal Family. In Mental Retardation in America: A Historical Reader, ed. Noll, Steven and Trent, James W., Jr., 362–63. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Jesse. 2010. Frontloading Mitigation: The “Legal” and the “Human” in Death Penalty Defense. Law & Social Inquiry 35 (1): 39–65.Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew. 2012. Of Mice and Men: The Execution of Marvin Wilson. The Atlantic, August 8. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/of-mice-and-men-the-execution-of-marvin-wilson/260713/(accessed June 12, 2013).Google Scholar
Cole, Simon, and Aronson, Jay D. 2009. Blinded by Science on the Road to Abolition? In The Road to Abolition?: The Future of Capital Punishment in the United States, ed. Charles, Ogeltree and Austin, Sarat, 46–71. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Culbert, Jennifer L. 2007 Dead Certainty: The Death Penalty and the Problem of Judgment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Death Penalty Information Center. (2013). The Death Penalty in 2013: Year End Report. Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center.Google Scholar
DeMatteo, David, Marczyk, Geoffrey, and Pich, Michele. 2007. A National Survey of State Legislation Defining Mental Retardation: Implications for Policy and Practice After Atkins . Behavioral Sciences & the Law 25 (6): 781–802.Google Scholar
Dillard, J. Amy. 2011. And Death Shall Have No Dominion: How to Achieve the Categorical Exemption of Mentally Retarded Defendants from Execution. University of Richmond Law Review 45:961–1008.Google Scholar
Dorr, Gregory Michael. 2006. Defective or Disabled?: Race, Medicine, and Eugenics in Progressive Era Virginia and Alabama. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5 (4): 1–34.Google Scholar
Duvall, Julie C., and Morris, Richard J. 2006. Assessing Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases: Critical Issues for Psychology and Psychological Practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 37 (6): 658–65.Google Scholar
Ellis, James W. 2003. Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty: A Guide to State Legislative Issues. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter 27 (1): 11–24.Google Scholar
Engel, David M., and Munger, Fran W. 2003. Rights of Inclusion: Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, James R. 2006. Tethering the Elephant: Capital Cases, IQ, and the Flynn Effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 12 (2): 170–89.Google Scholar
Frohmann, Lisa, and Mertz, Elizabeth. 1994. Legal Reform and Social Construction: Violence, Gender, and the Law. Law & Social Inquiry 19 (4): 829–52.Google Scholar
Garland, David. 2010. Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Haney, Craig. 2002. Making Law Modern: Toward a Contextual Model of Justice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8 (1): 3–63.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Shelia. 2006 Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (2): 328–41.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Paul. 2012. Murder Stories: Ideological Narratives in Capital Punishment. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kreimer, Seth F. 2005. Truth Machines and Consequences: The Light and Dark Sides of “Accuracy” in Criminal Justice. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 60:655–74.Google Scholar
LaChance, Daniel. 2007. Last Words, Last Meals, and Last Stands: Agency and Individuality in the Modern Execution Process. Law & Social Inquiry 32 (3): 701–24.Google Scholar
Lombardo, Paul. A. 2010. Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell, Vol. 60. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lopez, Ian Haney. 2006. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2000a. The Disposal of Inmate #85271. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 20:3–34.Google Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2000b. On‐Line Executions: The Symbolic Use of the Electric Chair in Cyberspace. Political and Legal Anthropology Review 23 (2): 1–20.Google Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2002a. Capital Punishment as Moral Imperative Pro‐Death‐Penalty Discourse on the Internet. Punishment & Society 4 (2): 213–36.Google Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2002b. Sarat's “When the State Kills and the Transformation of Death Penalty Scholarship.” Law & Social Inquiry 27 (4): 903–21.Google Scholar
Miller, Kent. S., and Radelet, Michael L. 1993. Executing the Mentally Ill: The Criminal Justice System and the Case of Alvin Ford. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Montagu, Ashley. 1999. Intelligence, IQ, and Race. In Race and IQ, ed. Ashley, Montagu, 190–206. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noll, Steven. 1991. Southern Strategies for Handling the Black Feeble‐Minded: From Social Control to Profound Indifference. Journal of Policy History 3 (2): 1–22.Google Scholar
Perlin, Michael L. 1992. On Sanism. SMU Law Review 46:373–407.Google Scholar
Perlin, Michael L. 2000. The Hidden Prejudice: Mental Disability on Trial. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Prentky, Robert A., Janus, Eric, Barbaree, Howard, Schwartz, Barbara K., and Kafka, Martin P. 2006. Sexually Violent Predators in the Courtroom: Science on Trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 12 (4): 357–93.Google Scholar
Rollins, Joe. 2002. AIDS, Law, and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Law & Society Review 36 (1): 161–92.Google Scholar
Rudolf, John. 2012. Marvin Wilson Execution: Texas Puts Man with 61 IQ to Death. Huffington Post, August 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/marvin-wilson-execution-texas_n_1753968.html (accessed July 23, 2014).Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 2002. When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 2014. Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin, Chan, Madeline Cole, Maia, Lang, Melissa, Schcolnik, Nicholas, Sidhu, Jasjaap, and Siegel, Nica. 2014. Scenes of Execution: Spectatorship, Political Responsibility, and State Killing in American Film. Law & Social Inquiry 39 (3): 690–719.Google Scholar
Schopp, Robert F., Scalora, Mario J., and Pearce, Marc. 1999. Expert Testimony and Professional Judgment: Psychological Expertise and Commitment as a Sexual Predator After Hendricks . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5 (1): 120–74.Google Scholar
Slobogin, Christopher. 2014. Scientizing Culpability: The Implications of Hall v. Florida and the Possibility of a “Scientific Stare Decisis.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 23 (2): 415–30.Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol. S., and Steiker, Jordan M. 2008. Atkins v. Virginia: Lessons from Substance and Procedure in the Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment. DePaul Law Review 57:721–40.Google Scholar
Tobolowsky, Peggy M. 2003. Atkins Aftermath: Identifying Mentally Retarded Offenders and Excluding Them from Execution. Journal of Legislation 30 (1): 77–141.Google Scholar
Trahan, Donald E. 2004. Neuropsychological Report. Beaumont, TX: Think Progress. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wilson-psych-report.pdf (accessed May 11, 2015).Google Scholar
Trent, James W. Jr. 1995. Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weithorn, Lois A. 2008. Conceptual Hurdles to the Application of Atkins v. Virginia . Hastings Law Journal 59:1203–34.Google Scholar
White, Penny J. 2009. Treated Differently in Life but Not in Death: The Execution of the Intellectually Disabled After Atkins v. Virginia . Tennessee Law Review 76:1–29.Google Scholar
Willrich, Michael. 1998. The Two Percent Solution: Eugenic Jurisprudence and the Socialization of American Law, 1900–1930. Law and History Review, 16 (1): 63–111.Google Scholar
Wood, , Sarah, E., Packman, Wendy, Howell, Shelley, and Bongar, Bruce. 2013. A Failure to Implement: Analyzing State Responses to the Supreme Court's Directives in Atkins v. Virginia and Suggestions for a National Standard. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21:1–30.Google Scholar
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeJesus, 2012 WL 6553951 (2013).Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Gibson, 925 A.2d 167 (2007).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Briseño, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Texas Crim. App. 2004).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151 (Texas 2007).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Hearn, 310 S.W.3d 424 (Texas 2010).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Perkins, 851 So.2d 453 (Alabama 2002).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660 (Texas 2004).Google Scholar
Ex Parte van Alstyne, 239 S.W.3d 815 (Texas 2007).Google Scholar
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Google Scholar
Goodin v. State of Mississippi, 2012 WL 6200444 (2012).Google Scholar
Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).Google Scholar
Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014).Google Scholar
Jackson v. State of Alabama, 963 So.2d 150 (2006).Google Scholar
Lambert v. State of Oklahoma, 126 P.3d 646 (2005).Google Scholar
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).Google Scholar
Neal v. State of Texas, 256 S.W.3d 264 (2008).Google Scholar
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).Google Scholar
Phillips v. State of Florida, 984 So.2d 503 (2008).Google Scholar
Pickens v. State of Oklahoma, 126 P.3d 612 (2005).Google Scholar
Rankin v. State of Arkansas, 948 S.W.2d 397 (1997).Google Scholar
Rogers v. State of Indiana, 698 N.E.3d 1172 (1998).Google Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).Google Scholar
Smith v. State of Tennessee, 2011 WL 6318946 (2011).Google Scholar
State of Arizona v. Grell, 2013 WL 85349 (2013).Google Scholar
State of Tennessee v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (1994).Google Scholar
van Tran v. State of Tennessee, 66 S.W.3d 790 (2001).Google Scholar
Retarded Defendant Act, Alabama Code § 15‐24‐1 (1975).Google Scholar
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeJesus, 2012 WL 6553951 (2013).Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Gibson, 925 A.2d 167 (2007).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Briseño, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Texas Crim. App. 2004).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151 (Texas 2007).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Hearn, 310 S.W.3d 424 (Texas 2010).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Perkins, 851 So.2d 453 (Alabama 2002).Google Scholar
Ex Parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660 (Texas 2004).Google Scholar
Ex Parte van Alstyne, 239 S.W.3d 815 (Texas 2007).Google Scholar
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Google Scholar
Goodin v. State of Mississippi, 2012 WL 6200444 (2012).Google Scholar
Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).Google Scholar
Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014).Google Scholar
Jackson v. State of Alabama, 963 So.2d 150 (2006).Google Scholar
Lambert v. State of Oklahoma, 126 P.3d 646 (2005).Google Scholar
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).Google Scholar
Neal v. State of Texas, 256 S.W.3d 264 (2008).Google Scholar
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).Google Scholar
Phillips v. State of Florida, 984 So.2d 503 (2008).Google Scholar
Pickens v. State of Oklahoma, 126 P.3d 612 (2005).Google Scholar
Rankin v. State of Arkansas, 948 S.W.2d 397 (1997).Google Scholar
Rogers v. State of Indiana, 698 N.E.3d 1172 (1998).Google Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).Google Scholar
Smith v. State of Tennessee, 2011 WL 6318946 (2011).Google Scholar
State of Arizona v. Grell, 2013 WL 85349 (2013).Google Scholar
State of Tennessee v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (1994).Google Scholar
van Tran v. State of Tennessee, 66 S.W.3d 790 (2001).Google Scholar
Retarded Defendant Act, Alabama Code § 15‐24‐1 (1975).Google Scholar