Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Court Rules Against Capital Punishment for Mentally Retarded
Aired June 20, 2002 - 12:01 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We begin this hour with a major reversal from the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices ruled that executing the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment.
Our Bob Franken is outside the U.S. Supreme Court, and he's got the latest on that -- hi there, Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: This is a reversal, as you pointed out, of law as it existed for well over a decade. The justices have now said that there is a national consensus to change the mind of the Supreme Court about executing the mentally retarded because of their disabilities, the majority ruled, in areas of reasoning, judgment and control of their impulses. They do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct. It was a ruling that was made by a 6-3 margin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRANKEN (voice-over): Once again, the Supreme Court has contemplated another of the endless questions that one would expect to accompany the ultimate punishment, capital punishment. Is it the cruel and unusual punishment banned by the Constitution to execute the mentally retarded? The main question before the court, is there a national consensus?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn't like how it was going down any more (ph).
FRANKEN: Daryl Atkins was sentenced to death for a 1996 robbery- murder. His IQ tests at 59, mentally between 9 and 12 years old. No state executes children between 9 and 12 years old. Eighteen states prohibit capital punishment for retarded adults.
DIANE CLEMENTS, VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACTIVIST: If you look at each of these states and the laws that they have passed, there still is not a consensus because they are all over the chart in how they determine mental retardation.
RICHARD DIETER, DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER: I don't think the Supreme Court ever wants to wait until we have, you know, 50 states saying one thing before it says that a punishment has become cruel and unusual.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FRANKEN: Six of the justices of the nine ruled that there was an adequate national consensus to overturn the execution of Daryl Atkins. Now there were three who dissented. The normal conservative three: Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, they wrote that there is no support in the text or history of the eighth amendment, which, of course, is what bans cruel and unusual punishment. And they went on to say -- and this is a very stinging comment -- seldom has an opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members.
This is a particular issue that very much involves the personal attitudes of the member of the court. And this time the ruling was 6-3 against the death penalty for the mentally retarded -- Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: Well, Bob, what does this mean for cases that executions have already taken place involving the mentally retarded? Do their families have any legal recourse now that this decision has come down?
FRANKEN: It's the type of thing where, no, you can't go back ex post facto and do any sort of legal movements. Of course, as you know, one of the Constitution's prohibitive -- prohibitions is ex post facto. That is to say, after the fact. It just establishes a small part of the body of the law, a new part of the body of the law regarding capital punishment.
And it is interesting to note, with new technologies, and I'm thinking particularly of DNA, capital punishment is going to go through quite an evolution in the United States. This was just proof of the fact that it can evolve.
WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks very much, Bob Franken, from the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. Appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
