Atkins Vs. Virginia Case Study

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia stated that it was unconstitutional to execute defendants with “mental retardation.” However, legal questions surrounding this issue remain unresolved. The Court in Atkins left the definition and method of determining intellectual disability up to individual states. It has been said that 46 known “mentally retarded” persons have been executed since 1976. Of these 46, two occurred after Atkins v. Virginia was decided. Controversy exists because Atkins v. Virginia did not provide a definition of intellectually disabled. Although most states use some variation of the definition provided by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), there is still a lack

According to the Supreme Court, Florida’s rule disregards established medical practice. At face value, Florida’s statute seemed to be consistent with the decisions made in the case of Atkins v. Virginia. However, later it was discovered that Florida’s rule disregarded the established medical practice. For example, Florida was considering an IQ score as final and conclusive evidence of a defendant’s intellectual capacity, ignoring statistical fact which states that an IQ is best understood as a range rather than definite score. The Supreme Court’s rejections of a strict 70–point cutoff in the majority of states and a recognition of the standard error of measurement, provide strong evidence that society does not regard this strict cutoff as proper or humane. An inherent challenge or obstacle for the court could include the statement made during the decision of Atkins v. Virginia. The case stated that the method of determining intellectual disability was up to individual states. By making a new constitutional clarification, the Supreme Court is limiting the states freedom in determining intellectual disability. Given the new constitutional clarification of what cannot be done, one could ask what keeps states from using a the range to satisfy their personal agenda. In other words, what keeps states from taking an IQ score of 69 and applying the 5–point range to make the score become 74. In this case, a state could argue that the individual is not intellectually disabled, swaying evidence to support their claims. Another question one may ask is how this new constitutional clarification really clarifies anything at all? For example, by rejecting a strict 70–point cutoff there is no universal score which indicates an intellectual disability. Does this harm the process or help the process? In other words, has the Supreme Court made the process more vague and