Skip to main content

Must read Terms of Service & Privacy Policy and be at least 18

Must read Terms of Service & Privacy Policy and be at least 18

 
Law Dog

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) Dec 20, 2002

A judge has thrown out the death sentence of a condemned serial killer, citing a Supreme Court of the United States ruling that determined executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional.

Joseph Miller, 37, was convicted of murdering three women and confessed to a fourth slaying.

Prosecutors blasted Dauphin County Judge Jeannine Turgeon's ruling, which leaves Miller serving life in prison, saying the judge would not allow them to have Miller examined or hold a hearing on the case.

In a three-sentence order issued Wednesday, Turgeon cited the high court case decided in June 2002, and stated that evidence presented at trial and in subsequent hearings "clearly established that (Miller) suffers from mental retardation."

"We completely disagree with the judge's holding," Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr. said. "We intend to appeal vigorously."

Defense attorneys said prosecutors had long acknowledged that Miller was mentally retarded until the nation's high court ruled it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute the mentally retarded. Following that ruling, prosecutors then denied any knowledge of that fact, already established in court proceedings.


Last post
15 posts / 0 new

 
wolfdreamer

In Penry v. Lynaugh in 1989 ( 492 US 584), the US Supreme Court held that the execution of persons with mental retardation was not in violation of the Eight Amendment, instead mental retardation would be seen as a mitigating factor. In 2002, the Supreme Court again visited the issue of capital punishment and mental retardation, this time the Court held in Atkins v. Virginia (For summary and implications of the Atkins decision click here) that the execution of persons with mental retardation was in fact unconstitutional. This landmark ruling reflects a growing recognition and consensus that those with mental retardation simply do not possess the requisite degree of culpability and consequently, a sentence of death is contrary to the principle of proportionality. A person with mental retardation cannot fully appreciate the consequence of their actions or comprehend the punishment that awaits them. Often men and women with mental retardation lack the capacity to understand abstract concepts including those of death, waiving of rights, particularly in regard to Miranda, and the right against self-incrimination, more commonly known as the right to silence. The implications of this permeate every aspect of their participation within the criminal justice procedure to the effect that they lack the capacity to fully assist counsel in their own defense.

 
wolfdreamer
 
wolfdreamer
 
wolfdreamer
 
wolfdreamer

maybe ghetto but it can also be faked

The case of John Paul Penry exemplifies the limitations of this decision. Just two weeks after the decision in Atkins, John Paul Penry was sentenced to death for the third time despite being consistently assessed from the age of six as having mental retardation and an IQ of 50-63. The Texan judge and jury concluded that Penry was not learning disabled. The concept of mental retardation is both illusory and elusive: juries have proven to be reluctant to accept that the accused has mental retardation, instead believing it to be easily faked. Indeed, despite clear evidence to the contrary a juror in Penry's re-sentencing hearing stated that to him it was obvious Penry was faking his mental retardation.

This belief is further echoed within the dissent of Justice Scalia in Atkins who stated that mental retardation could be "feigned," and the enhanced risk of wrongful execution was "laughable."

The exact number of people with mental retardation facing death sentences or languishing on death row is unknown due to the very nature of the disability: Identifying and qualifying mental retardation is exceedingly difficult for a variety of reasons. Whilst the decision in Atkins is welcome, the problems associated with the interaction of law and mental disabilities have not yet been resolved.

 
wolfdreamer
 
GhettoBrats

You all know as well that in the processing of all in comming inmates there always a state physic eveuation done on all inmates, so this is just a cover-up if you will and doesn't it seem like they want to pretend as though they didn't know this ahead of time. that state is fooling nobody but themselves if thay believe that the public is to fall for that they didn't know...

 
GhettoBrats
 
GhettoBrats
 
Susansback

:)

 
Susansback
 
Susansback
 
Nyx

Oh Gawd!

 
Nyx
 
Nyx