'Retards' and 'Full Decks'

ABOUT US | SUBSCRIBE | LINKS | E-MAIL EDITOR | HOME

Ragged
Edge
EXTRA!

'Not Playing with a Full Deck:'
Scalia shows true colors in case on execution of prisoners with retardation

by James Patterson

Feb 27, 2002 -- On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, case number 00-8452, which will determine whether it is constitutional to sentence mentally retarded inmates to death. Advocates for people with mental retardation joined other supporters on behalf of Daryl Atkins, a death-row inmate who has an I.Q. of 59. Those with an I.Q. below 70 are classified as mentally retarded.

'Execution of Retards to Be Reviewed.'
Headline sent out by the the Associated Press's online service early in the day on Feb. 20. AP editors caught it and it soon disappeared, but not soon enough to be missed by Washington Post media critic HOWARD KURTZ who declared it Offensive Headline of the Week. AP spokeswoman Kelly Smith Tunney, who told Kurtz the headline writer was reprimanded, called it "a horribly embarrassing thing to happen... the writer used extremely poor judgment -- not maliciously, but breathtakingly from a journalistic viewpoint."

That Atkins is guilty of murder there is no doubt. A jury found compelling evidence that he killed a young Air Force serviceman in 1996, when Atkins was 18.

Atkins's attorneys argue that to subject him to the death penalty would amount to cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, they argue that 18 states, among those that allow capital punishment, bar execution of the retarded on the basis they lack the mental capacity to understand why they are being executed.

This matter is not new to the Supreme Court. In 1989, it ruled that execution of the retarded was constitutional and several highly publicized executions took place, one involving former Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.

During the one-hour hearing, several justices seemed convinced that it was time for the High Court to bar such executions. However, Justice Antonin Scalia, a Reagan appointee, seemed not only unmoved by the argument but downright hostile to the subject -- at one point describing Atkins and others with retardation as "not playing with a full deck."

The way Scalia made his remark suggested he intended to insult and express his contempt. It seems incredible that a person in such a high position of authority could make such a remark. Such a comment is wrong and should not be condoned.
The Court is expected to issue a decision on Atkins in July.

Washington-based James Patterson writes frequently about disability issues.

Back to home page


ABOUT US | SUBSCRIBE | LINKS | E-MAIL EDITOR | HOME

This Website produced by Cliffwood Organic Works