The recent oral argument in Hamm v. Smith at the Supreme Court has left many legal experts and advocates for individuals with intellectual disabilities scratching their heads. The case, which centers around the execution of a man with an IQ of 70, has brought to light the alarming reality that decades of case law based on scientific evidence is now being challenged at the highest level of our justice system.
At the heart of this case is the question of whether or not individuals with intellectual disabilities should be exempt from the death penalty. This issue has been a contentious one for years, with advocates arguing that those with intellectual disabilities lack the mental capacity to fully understand their actions and therefore should not be held to the same standards as those without disabilities.
But in the state of Alabama, where the case originated, the government is fighting tooth and nail to make it easier to execute individuals with intellectual disabilities. In fact, the state’s attorney general, Steve Marshall, has gone so far as to ask the Supreme Court to overturn a previous ruling that prohibits the execution of individuals with an IQ of 70 or below.
This request is not only shocking, but it also goes against decades of established case law and scientific evidence. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision was based on the understanding that those with intellectual disabilities have diminished culpability and therefore should not be subject to the ultimate punishment of death.
Since then, numerous studies have confirmed the link between intellectual disabilities and a reduced capacity for understanding and reasoning. In fact, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities has stated that individuals with an IQ below 70 have significant limitations in adaptive functioning and are unable to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.
So why is the state of Alabama pushing so hard to make it easier to execute individuals with intellectual disabilities? The answer lies in their desire to expedite the execution process and avoid lengthy appeals. By lowering the IQ threshold for exemption, the state hopes to eliminate any potential roadblocks in their pursuit of the death penalty.
But this shortsighted approach ignores the very real and well-documented challenges that individuals with intellectual disabilities face in the criminal justice system. From difficulties in understanding legal proceedings to being more likely to falsely confess, these individuals are at a significant disadvantage and are more likely to be wrongfully convicted.
Furthermore, the argument put forth by Alabama’s attorney general that an IQ of 70 is not a significant enough impairment to warrant exemption from the death penalty is not only flawed, but it also goes against the very principles of justice and fairness. The fact that someone may have a slightly higher IQ does not negate the fact that they still have a disability that impacts their ability to fully understand and participate in the criminal justice system.
The bizarre nature of the oral argument in Hamm v. Smith highlights the dangerous precedent that could be set if the Supreme Court were to side with Alabama. It would not only go against established case law and scientific evidence, but it would also send a message that individuals with intellectual disabilities are not worthy of the same protections and considerations as those without disabilities.
As a society, we must recognize and value the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their cognitive abilities. The death penalty is a punishment that should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes, and it is clear that individuals with intellectual disabilities do not fit into this category.
In the end, the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the rights and protections of individuals with intellectual disabilities. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the principles of justice and fairness and continue to recognize the importance of scientific evidence in our legal system. Anything less would be a grave injustice.
