The Supreme Court is set to hear a new case, Hamm v. Smith, which tests whether the current Republican majority wants to retain its limits on capital punishment for people with intellectual disabilities. In 2002, the court ruled that executing offenders with intellectual disabilities was unconstitutional in Atkins v. Virginia. Now, nearly three decades later, the court will consider how to determine if someone is intellectually disabled.
The most likely outcome of this case is a decision giving states more leeway to execute people with marginal claims that they are intellectually disabled - "borderline" cases where clinicians might disagree on whether the offender should be diagnosed with an intellectual disability. However, some members of the court have signaled that they would like to go much further.
In Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), five Republican justices seemed to endorse a radical reshaping of the court's approach to the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion ignored the traditional framework of evaluating cruel and unusual punishments as evolving standards of decency, instead suggesting that courts must ask whether a particular punishment had fallen out of favor by the time of the founding.
This approach would likely lead to the court overruling past decisions holding that the Constitution forbids excessive punishments for relatively minor crimes. For example, jaywalkers, small-time drug offenders, or drivers who do not come to a complete stop at a "STOP" sign could all be sentenced to life in prison.
It is unclear whether a majority of the court will adopt this radical approach, but it is very likely that the Eighth Amendment will emerge smaller from the court's decision in Hamm. This could diminish the legal protections against bizarre or excessive punishments that all Americans enjoy.
The court's right flank has criticized Atkins from the day it was decided, and now controls six seats on the nine-justice court. The death row inmate at the heart of Hamm's claim is genuinely marginal, making it likely that the court will decide in his favor without having to reach very far.
The specific issue before the court in Hamm is whether Joseph Clifton Smith can be executed for a 1997 robbery and murder despite claiming he has an intellectual disability. Smith took five IQ tests, scoring between 72 and 78 on those tests, but courts hearing his claims have determined that he is intellectually disabled based on significant deficits in social and intellectual skills.
The court's decision will likely turn on the tension within its current decisions applying Atkins. On one hand, while Atkins did hold that executing intellectually disabled offenders is unconstitutional, it gave states a fair amount of leeway in how they implement this holding. On the other hand, recent decisions have insisted that states must follow clinical standards when determining which offenders are intellectually disabled.
In Bucklew, Gorsuch took a much more radical approach, suggesting that courts should ask whether a particular punishment had fallen out of favor by the time of the founding. This approach would likely lead to the court overruling past decisions and permitting very steep penalties for very small crimes.
It is unclear how the justices will resolve this case, but it could potentially revolutionize the court's approach to the Eighth Amendment. It may not have five votes to adopt this radical approach, but at least some members of the Bucklew majority may have joined Gorsuch's opinion because they agreed with the result, while still harboring some qualms about his broader theory.
The most likely outcome of this case is a decision giving states more leeway to execute people with marginal claims that they are intellectually disabled - "borderline" cases where clinicians might disagree on whether the offender should be diagnosed with an intellectual disability. However, some members of the court have signaled that they would like to go much further.
In Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), five Republican justices seemed to endorse a radical reshaping of the court's approach to the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion ignored the traditional framework of evaluating cruel and unusual punishments as evolving standards of decency, instead suggesting that courts must ask whether a particular punishment had fallen out of favor by the time of the founding.
This approach would likely lead to the court overruling past decisions holding that the Constitution forbids excessive punishments for relatively minor crimes. For example, jaywalkers, small-time drug offenders, or drivers who do not come to a complete stop at a "STOP" sign could all be sentenced to life in prison.
It is unclear whether a majority of the court will adopt this radical approach, but it is very likely that the Eighth Amendment will emerge smaller from the court's decision in Hamm. This could diminish the legal protections against bizarre or excessive punishments that all Americans enjoy.
The court's right flank has criticized Atkins from the day it was decided, and now controls six seats on the nine-justice court. The death row inmate at the heart of Hamm's claim is genuinely marginal, making it likely that the court will decide in his favor without having to reach very far.
The specific issue before the court in Hamm is whether Joseph Clifton Smith can be executed for a 1997 robbery and murder despite claiming he has an intellectual disability. Smith took five IQ tests, scoring between 72 and 78 on those tests, but courts hearing his claims have determined that he is intellectually disabled based on significant deficits in social and intellectual skills.
The court's decision will likely turn on the tension within its current decisions applying Atkins. On one hand, while Atkins did hold that executing intellectually disabled offenders is unconstitutional, it gave states a fair amount of leeway in how they implement this holding. On the other hand, recent decisions have insisted that states must follow clinical standards when determining which offenders are intellectually disabled.
In Bucklew, Gorsuch took a much more radical approach, suggesting that courts should ask whether a particular punishment had fallen out of favor by the time of the founding. This approach would likely lead to the court overruling past decisions and permitting very steep penalties for very small crimes.
It is unclear how the justices will resolve this case, but it could potentially revolutionize the court's approach to the Eighth Amendment. It may not have five votes to adopt this radical approach, but at least some members of the Bucklew majority may have joined Gorsuch's opinion because they agreed with the result, while still harboring some qualms about his broader theory.
idk what's going on but it sounds super scary and I'm kinda worried that we're gonna lose some of our basic human rights 
what if they actually do decide to let him go? I think its super important that the court finds a way to balance justice and mercy at the same time 
think its not a good idea to loosen up the rules on capital punishment people already suffer enough 
, and this case Hamm v. Smith could go either way 
. i'm kinda worried that the court might water down the protections for people with intellectual disabilities 
. what if someone's diagnosis is incorrect or they're just not getting a fair shake? 
. i mean, who decides what punishments are "cruel and unusual"? 
it seems like we might be heading towards a future where people can get life in prison for minor crimes 
. that's just not right 
.
. what if someone's found guilty of a crime they didn't commit? 
. I mean, I get where Atkins v. Virginia was important back in 2002, but now it's like they wanna take that ruling and water it down. 
. His idea that courts should just check if a punishment has fallen outta favor since the founding? That's some crazy talk, dude 
. I don't think he wants us to be stuck with life sentences for jaywalkin' or somethin' 
.
, but you never know what's gonna happen in DC 
. One thing's for sure, though: if they do decide to go radical, it's gonna be a wild ride 
.
. And if they start applying a new standard that says punishments fall out of favor over time, it could lead to some seriously harsh penalties 
It's like they're trying to take away our basic human rights and just throw them on the scrap heap. 
it's not just about capital punishment, but about the fundamental principles of our justice system and what constitutes cruelty and unusual punishment. if they start to undermine those protections, we're basically losing a cornerstone of our democracy 
so like if we put this into context... 
- that's like, 1.3% of the federal budget 
but did u know that ppl w/ intell disability are up to 4x more likely to be wrongly convicted than others? 
stats show that since Atkins v. Virginia (2002), there's been a 26% decrease in executions of people w/ intell disability 
but still, ppl w/ intell disability are being executed at a rate 2.5x higher than those without 
especially when it comes to protecting people w/ intell disability 
. I mean, sure, some folks are saying that if states have more leeway to execute people with marginal claims of intellectual disability, that's basically just a euphemism for "we're gonna find ways to get around the death penalty ban" 
. The thing is, it's hard to predict what's gonna happen at this point... but one thing's for sure, we'll be watching this case like hawk 
.
. The idea that some justices want to go way beyond what Atkins said is really troubling and could have huge consequences for people who get wrongly accused of capital crimes 
. It feels like we're at a crossroads here - if the court decides to take this radical approach, it could lead to some pretty scary outcomes for people who are already vulnerable 
. If they start expanding the definition of what it means to be intellectually disabled, who's next? 
. I'm talking life in prison for jaywalkers or small-time drug offenders - it's just not right 
.