Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Capital Punishment to be Reconsidered by Supreme Court with Madison v. Alabama

3/28/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Emma Davies
Emma Davies  is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, has divided state legislatures, and the public since the country’s conception, and remains in the spotlight as one of America’s biggest hot-button issues. In the currently ongoing
Madison v. Alabama Supreme Court case, nine justices are once again addressing this age-old topic of the death penalty, and looking at its intersection with the medical field, psychology, and understandings of culpability.
Countless legislation and court cases have sought to define and regulate the most severe punishment that the law can apply. Policies differ on a state-by-state and county-by-county basis, but is overall modulated by Supreme Court rulings. Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment [1], but in 2017, the death penalty was conducted by eight states on 23 individuals [2]. The Supreme Court plays a role in setting limits on who can impose the death penalty and, in recent years, who can be executed [3]. Madison v. Alabama re-examines the correct parameters of who may or may not receive the death penalty by asking whether or not states should be allowed to execute defendants on death row who do not remember their crimes.   

In the 2002 Supreme Court case Atkins v. Virginia, the Court ruled that states cannot execute people with severe intellectual disability due to the Eighth Amendment’s forbiddance of “cruel and unusual punishments” [4]. This ruling overturned the 1989 Supreme Court case Penry v. Lynaugh, which did not rule execution of people with severe intellectual disability a violation of the Eighth Amendment [5]. However, it affirmed states’ rights to define themselves what intellectual disability means, thus allowing for flexibility in application of this ruling [6]. In exempting those with severe intellectual disability from execution, Justice John Paul Stevens relied on three rationales when writing for the majority opinion. First, retribution depends on culpability; since mentally disabled people have diminished cognitive and behavioral faculties, they are of lessor culpability and thus are not eligible for the death penalty. Second, mentally disabled criminals are at a disadvantage in the trial process in that they have less of an ability to give their lawyers comprehensive support, they are more likely to confess to a crime they did not commit, and they may be unable to express remorse during the proceedings. Stevens, quoting former Justice Earl Warren in the 1958 Supreme Court case Trop v. Dulles, pointed to the need to respond to “evolving standards of decency,” as determined by the “national consensus,” quoting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor [7]. Stevens also supported that the “national consensus”  was against sentencing the death penalty to mentally disabled individuals, as reflected by “legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures“ and by the “social and professional consensus” of various organizations via amicus curiae briefs [8]. In requiring states to use an evolving standard that is “informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent” [9], the Supreme Court itself did not establish its own standard for determining the competency of individuals. However, this decision was perceived by some as inadequate, that in practice it was open to manipulation in that each state could set standards in defining who was considered “severely disabled” so that there were no ostensible changes to the status quo. Critics of this ruling point to one particular case of controversy, where state officials in Georgia ignored expert medical opinion and executed a man, Warren Lee Hill, who was identified as “intellectually disabled” because the state applied a “proven beyond reasonable doubt” standard to mental disability [10]. Even though two lower courts had identified Hill as having an “intellectual disability,” supported by doctor evaluations and psychological tests, since Hill had served in the Navy, and at times, was measured to have an IQ in the 90’s, his proof of mental disability did not meet Georgia’s state standard [11]. In these ways, critics claimed that Atkins v. Virginia did not sufficiently prevent states from exempting individuals from execution due to mental disability. Regardless of the decision’s potential deficits, for the 83 incarcerees with severe intellectual disability who had their sentences reduced, Atkins served as an incredibly important decision [12].

In the 2014 Hall v. Florida, the Supreme Court had to consider whether Florida’s trial system violated the standards of Atkins v. Virginia [13] . Particularly, it addressed a case in which convicted murder Freddie Lee Hall filed a claim to be exempt due to mental disability;however, Florida judges declared him qualifiable for execution because he did not fit state requirements of having an IQ below 70. In the 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court specified that a fixed IQ value could not be the sole indicator of whether or not it was permissible to execute someone. Justice Kennedy also argued that Florida’s standards were too narrow by relying only on IQ test without consideration of other evidence [14]. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy expressed that findings within the scientific community have proven that IQ tests are not infallible, but rather open to errors of measurement [15]. By doing so, the Court required state officials to provide a more rigorous and comprehensive evaluation prior to permitting that a individual to be executed [16]. Many saw this as a correction to Atkins v. Virginia. Hall v. Florida sought to reflect scientific consensus that IQ is open to err, and to correct the flexibility that Atkins v. Virginia gave to states in qualifying individuals as exempt from receiving the death penalty.

Now in 2018’s Madison v. Alabama, the question now turns to the constitutionality of executing prisoners that become mentally incapacitated after committing a crime to the degree that they do not remember committing the act. While Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida questioned the extent to which severely-diminished intellect excludes someone from capital punishment, Madison v. Alabama questions the extent to which the onset of dementia or severely-diminished memory excludes someone from capital punishment. Again, on the table is the consideration of culpability as it relates to health. In this case, the Court must consider whether Alabama has the right to execute Vernon Madison, a convicted murderer, who—after suffering multiple strokes—has become disabled to the point that he can no longer perform simple tasks such as reciting the alphabet, and, perhaps most controversial, remember the crime he committed. This case calls into question the reasoning behind the penal system—is the goal of punishment to enact retributive justice? If so, can justice be served when a prisoner is so severely impaired that they do not know why they are being punished? Madison’s legal team argues that “no penological justification or retributive value can be found in executing a severely impaired and incompetent prisoner.” On the contrary, Alabama defends that as long as Madison knows why he is being punished, execution serves to both retribute for the wrong and deter future offenders [17].

Supporters of capital punishment justify the practice as historically and theoretically fundamental to maintaining a just society. Ending this practice would place a higher value on the lives of the most egregious members of society than the lives of victims, their families, and society. From the opposing side, opponents of the death penalty echo the rationale provided by former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Harry Blackmun, who said that judges ought not to “tinker with the machinery of death” [18] and that capital punishment represents a failed experiment of the penal system.

The side that today’s Supreme Court will take is still unclear due in part to recent changes in the Court’s composition. In past executions cases, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy often provided the decisive vote to create the needed majority for a side, often for the defendant. With newly-appointed Brett Kavanaugh as his replacement, one cannot easily predict the outcome of the decision. While Kavanaugh has been identified to adopt a more conservative jurisprudence grounded in tradition and precedent, his vote remains speculative, as his work on the D.C Circuit primarily involved administrative and environmental law cases and never specifically addressed his standpoint on capital punishment [19].

Again, the Supreme Court must take a stance on an age-old inquiry that creates just as much contention as topics of affirmative action and abortion. The Court must grapple with a topic at the intersection of medicine, morality, and the law. The outcome of this decision will further guide America’s understanding of the role of the penal system, and of the correct structure of federalism for the country.   
​


References:
[1] Bazelon, Emily. "Where the Death Penalty Still Lives." The New York Times. August 23, 2016. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/magazine/where-the-death-penalty-still-lives.html.

[2] Death Penalty Information Center. Facts about the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. Death Penalty Information Center. November 28, 2018. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf.

[3]Epps, Garrett. "The Machinery of Death Is Back on the Docket." The Atlantic. September 18, 2018. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/tinkering-with-the-machinery-of-death/570421/.

[4] LII Staff. "Eighth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. October 10, 2017. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment.

[5] "Penry v. Lynaugh." Oyez. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6177.

[6] Cohen, Andrew. "At Last, the Supreme Court Turns to Mental Disability and the Death Penalty." The Atlantic. October 25, 2013. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/at-last-the-supreme-court-turns-to-mental-disability-and-the-death-penalty/280736/.

[7] LII Staff. "Thompson v. Oklahoma." Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/487/815.

[8]Elmore, Kelly Christine. "Atkins v. Virginia: Death Penalty for the Mentally Retarded - Cruel and Unusual - The Crime, Not the Punishment." DePaul Law Review 53, no. 3 (Spring 2004): 1285-346. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol53/iss3/14

[9] LII Staff. "Atkins v. Virginia." Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 3, 2018.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html.

[10] Connors, Tracy. "Georgia Executes Warren Lee Hill Despite Low IQ Claim." NBCNews.com. January 27, 2015. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/lethal-injection/georgia-executes-warren-lee-hill-despite-low-iq-claim-n294206.

[11] Blinder, Alan. "Georgia Executes Warren Lee Hill for Murder." The New York Times. December 21, 2017. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/georgia-executes-warren-lee-hill-for-murder.html.

[12] Blume, John. "Sentence Reversals in Intellectual Disability Cases." Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center. May 08, 2008. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2395.

[13] "Hall v. Florida." Oyez, 3 Dec. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-10882.

[14] Denniston, Lyle. "Opinion Analysis: A New Limit on the Death Penalty." SCOTUSblog. May 27, 2014. Accessed December 03, 2018. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/opinion-analysis-a-new-limit-on-the-death-penalty/.

[15] Cohen, Andrew. "Supreme Court Case May Stop States That Still Execute Mentally Disabled." The Atlantic. February 28, 2014. Accessed December 04, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/supreme-court-case-may-stop-states-that-still-execute-mentally-disabled/283969/.

[16] Cohen, Andrew. "At Last, the Supreme Court Turns to Mental Disability and the Death Penalty." The Atlantic. October 25, 2013. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/at-last-the-supreme-court-turns-to-mental-disability-and-the-death-penalty/280736/.

[17] Epps, Garrett. "The Machinery of Death Is Back on the Docket." The Atlantic. September 18, 2018. Accessed December 04, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/tinkering-with-the-machinery-of-death/570421/.

[18] Blackmun. "Callins v. Collins,510 U.S. 1141 (1994)." LII / Legal Information Institute. February 22, 1994. Accessed December 04, 2018. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-7054.ZA1.html.

[19] CRS Staff. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh: His Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court. Congress. Congressional Research Service. August 21, 2018. Accessed December 3, 2018.

Photo Credit: Wiki Commons: Matthew H. Wade
The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​