June 1, 2014 -- Another Blow To Death Penalty -- Supreme Court Determines That States Can’t Lawfully Use A Set IQ Number To Determine If Someone Is Sufficiently Competent To Be Executed, Must Evaluate Each Candidate On A Case By Case Basis

This past week, the Supreme Court held that the practice of determining that someone was competent enough to be executed based on their IQ violated the 8^th Amendment.  The Case – Hall v. Florida, can be read here:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-10882_36g4.pdf.  A New York Times article “On Death Row With Low I.Q., and New Hope for a Reprieve”, discussing the practice, the reasoning of the Court, and the ramifications, can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/us/on-death-row-with-low-iq-and-new-hope-for-a-reprieve.html.

In 2002, the Supreme Court, in Atkins v. Virginia, held that it was unconstitutional to execute the developmentally disabled, and left to the states the process of determine who could qualify for that penalty.  This past week, in Hall v. Florida, the Court determined that IQ tests are subjective, can change, and should not be a legitimate basis upon which a State can determine whether someone qualifies. 

The morality and logic associated with the death penalty seem worlds away from common sense. Some, like myself, find even addressing someone’s “competence to be executed” bizarre.  Adding limitations on the death penalty, such as “we won’t apply it to those with developmental disabilities”, doesn’t make it more civilized. 

But any limitations on the implementation of the death penalty, including those set out in Hall v. Florida, are a sign of progress.  As frustrating as it may be to applaud this decision, we should.