Analysis Of The Atkins V. Virginia Case

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

In the case of Atkins v. Virginia, Daryl Renard Atkins is accused of the kidnapping, robbery, and murder of Eric Michael Nesbitt. Atkins was also charged with use of a firearm while committing each of these offenses ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.”, 2017). Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes, by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death, but his case was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Courts, on the grounds that it is unlawful to put to death a person who has intellectual disabilities (Mental Retardation). Virginia Supreme Courts upheld the decision of the Virginia courts

In other words, Billy White would have been classified as mentally retarded or intellectually disabled. In 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruled that executing mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, during the time White was executed there was nothing in place to protect the intellectually disabled.

Debate over capital punishment is nothing new, but it reaches a whole new level when the accused is mentally ill. The question then becomes… was the perpetrator aware of his heinous actions by knowing right from wrong at the time of the crime or was the mental illness controlling his actions? While being sympathetic to the grief and heart break of the victim’s loved ones, I believe that execution for the mentally ill should not be allowed, because often their illness makes them incapable of knowing right and wrong of their actions. Many of those with mental illnesses often go undiagnosed and untreated, either by choice or by financial circumstances, because of the stigma and general lack of understanding associated with this type of diagnosis in our society.

Charge: Arson to forest land, Arson to property, Unlawfully causing a fire forest, Misdemeanor unlawfully causing a fire of property

In his memoir Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson recounts the stories of several clients whose mental illness was ignored during their trial. Some had intellectual disabilities, others were dealing with the aftermath of severe trauma, but each one was changed in some way. Whether their reasoning had been altered or they simply did not understand what was happening, any crime they committed was closely tied to their mental state. Logically, a major detail like the defendant’s thought process and motivation behind the crime would have been discussed, but this was not the case. Any evidence of their illness was forgotten about or outright ignored by both the prosecution and the defense. When considering each crime with their mental illness in mind, sentencing the defendant to death row is needlessly cruel. Their avoidance of the topic shows a complete failure to understand how important it can be to an individual’s decision-making abilities.

There are laws and decisions of United States government and higher orders that present controversy to the people of America. In the state of Texas the application of the death penalty is difficult to interpret, especially for the mentally ill, because there is no written law or bill that explains the execution implication in complete detail. The death penalty is a capital punishment of death for those who have committed such high crime. This penalty goes for everyone who does such act no matter who you are, how rich how poor, or where you stand in society. For the longest time, even with the mindset and understanding that those who commit crime to a certain level can receive the execution punishment, the concern and debate whether the mentally

The case here at hand was argued October 5th of 1964. The issue was one that dealt with Ollie’s Barbecue and its owner Ollie McClung in Alabama and the refusal of black patrons coming inside to dine-in. Ollie’s only allowed take out to black customers, even though the majority of employees were black. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was handed down in July, Congress along with Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach were arguing that a clear violation of Title II of the Act was being committed by McClung. This case was close in distinction and timing of the Heart of Atlanta Motel case brought before the Supreme Court, as they were argued at the same time. “Section 201 (a) of Title II commands that all persons shall be entitled to

June 20, 2002 - The Supreme Court rules 6-3 in Atkins v. Virginia that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional.

While appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the petitioner argued, “that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue and in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The petitioner argued that “because he introduced expert witnesses to demonstrate mental retardation and the State did not introduce its own expert witnesses in rebuttal, the trial court should have disregarded the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue or granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The Texas court found that the burden of proof to determine intellectual disability fell to the petitioner and that there was “no authority,

Fact: Atkins is a mentally retarded criminal who killed someone and was sentenced to death. this was cruel and unusual punishment which goes against the 8th amendment, at the time his IQ was 59.

In order to examine my question thoroughly, I would need the court documents written on both The Slaughterhouse Cases (1872) and Williams v. Mississippi (1872). I would also need legal scholarly reviews about the ramifications and motivations of the cases. I would need primary sources of information from newspapers and articles from the time period to gage public opinion about the decisions. This may shed light onto the Justice’s mindsets during ruling. (For example, did the public opinion differ in the case of white butchers invoking the 14th amendment in comparison to a black man on trial for murder as in Williams v. Mississippi (1872)? Would public opinion sway the judges?) I would also desire information about the specific Supreme Court

Is it then ethical to sentence a person with undeveloped reasoning and thinking skills to the death penalty if they cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions? If adolescents are being considered to have diminished reasoning and thinking skills, how then do they compare the mentally ill? Do the same standards apply? If so, then the case of Atkins v. Virginia, in which it was declared by the U.S. Supreme Court that the mentally handicapped would not be sentenced to the death penalty, would be essential to the cause opposing juvenile death penalty. It is not denied that these juveniles have committed horrendous crimes and should be held accountable for their actions, but certain mitigating circumstances negate the need for a death penalty.

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

In Addition, there is a chance mentally ill citizens could be convicted to death (“Facts”). According to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness, One out of every ten persons who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill. “Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury” (“Facts”). Many mentally ill defendants have been drugged against their will in order for them to be competent enough to be executed (“Facts”). Some states still haven’t put a ban on executing mentally ill people such as Organ, although the United States Supreme Court has declared that