Atkins v virginia case. Atkins v. Virginia :: 536 U.S. 304 (2002) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 2022-10-13
Atkins v virginia case
Diktat is a German word that means "dictation" or "dictatorship." It is often used to refer to the harsh terms imposed on a defeated country by the victors in a war. In the context of Germany, the term diktat is most commonly associated with the Treaty of Versailles, which was signed at the end of World War I in 1919.
The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty between the Allied Powers (led by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Germany. It was meant to bring an end to the war and to establish the terms under which the defeated Germany would be forced to pay reparations to the Allied Powers. The treaty also imposed severe limitations on Germany's military and territorial expansion.
Many Germans viewed the Treaty of Versailles as a diktat, or dictate, because they felt that the terms were imposed on them by the victorious Allies without any input from the German government or people. The treaty was seen as extremely harsh and punitive, and many Germans felt that their country had been humiliated and treated unfairly.
The resentment and anger that many Germans felt towards the Treaty of Versailles played a significant role in the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in the 1920s and 1930s. Hitler and the Nazis promised to restore Germany's honor and power, and they used the treaty as a rallying cry to mobilize support for their cause. Hitler came to power in 1933, and he quickly set about tearing up the Treaty of Versailles and rebuilding the German military. This ultimately led to World War II, which ended with the defeat of Germany and the imposition of another set of harsh terms in the form of the Potsdam Agreement.
In conclusion, the term diktat is closely associated with the Treaty of Versailles and its impact on Germany following World War I. Many Germans saw the treaty as a dictate imposed on them by the victorious Allies, and the resentment and anger that it generated played a significant role in the rise of the Nazi Party and the outbreak of World War II.
ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
§45-5-102 1999 ; Ind. The Court attempts to bolster its embarrassingly feeble evidence of "consensus" with the following: "It is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change. Today's decision is the pinnacle of our Eighth Amendment death-is-different jurisprudence. Looking at the polling data reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion in light of these factors, one cannot help but observe how unlikely it is that the data could support a valid inference about the question presented by this case. It is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change. By definition, such individuals have substantial limitations not shared by the general population.
ATKINS v. VIRGINIA
Atkins was convicted of murder and sentenced to death despite the defense's argument that he was mildly mentally retarded. One need only read the definitions of mental retardation adopted by the American Association on Mental Retardation and the American Psychiatric Association set forth in the Court's opinion, ante, at 308, n. Ray, Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity 65, 87-92 W. Finally, the information provided to us does not indicate why a particular survey was conducted or, in a few cases, by whom, factors which also can bear on the objectivity of the results. Nelson administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales test WAIS-III , the standard instrument in the United States for assessing intellectual functioning.
Judge rejects appeal by death row inmate
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 24 1769 hereinafter Blackstone ; see also Penry, 492 U. The death penalty on a mentally retarded person is. Indeed, that sort of calculus is at the opposite end of the spectrum from behavior of mentally retarded Page 320 offenders. In 1972, the Supreme Court determined that all existing death penalty laws were cruel and unusual punishment Furman v. In light of these deficiencies, our death penalty jurisprudence provides two reasons consistent with the legislative consensus that the mentally retarded should be categorically excluded from execution.
The Daryl Atkins Case: Continuing Challenges to Intellectual Disability Determinations
In Enmund, supra, at 789, we invalidated the death penalty for mere participation in a robbery in which an accomplice took a life, a punishment not permitted in 28 of the death penalty States 78%. Here, even states that still technically permitted the execution of retarded defendants rarely carried them out. As discussed above, clinical definitions of mental retardation require not only subaverage intellectual functioning, but also significant limitations in adaptive skills such as communication, self-care, and self-direction that became manifest before age 18. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States 21 121st ed. Thus, even if one accepts that the survey instruments were adequately designed to address a relevant question, it is impossible to know whether the sample was representative enough or the methodology sufficiently sound to tell us anything about the opinions of the citizens of a particular State or the American public at large. He testified that, in his opinion, Atkins' limited intellect had been a consistent feature throughout his life, and that his IQ score of 59 is not an "aberration, malingered result, or invalid test score. Our independent evaluation of the issue reveals no reason to disagree with the judgment of "the legislatures that have recently addressed the matter" and concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal.
Atkins v. Virginia
III Beyond the empty talk of a "national consensus," the Court gives us a brief glimpse of what really underlies today's decision: pretension to a power confined neither by the moral sentiments originally enshrined in the Eighth Amendment its original meaning nor even by the current moral sentiments of the American people. Perhaps these practical difficulties will not be experienced by the minority of capital-punishment States that have very recently changed mental retardation from a mitigating factor to be accepted or rejected by the sentencer to an absolute immunity. Responding to the national attention received by the Bowden execution and our decision in Penry, state legislatures across the country began to address the issue. Not only does it, like all of that jurisprudence, find no support in the text or history of the Eighth Amendment; it does not even have support in current social attitudes regarding the conditions that render an otherwise just death penalty inappropriate. Although we decided Stanford on the same day as Penry, apparently only two state legislatures have raised the threshold age for imposition of the death penalty.
Atkins v. Virginia :: 536 U.S. 304 (2002) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Footnote The Kansas statute defines "mentally retarded" as "having significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning. Here, the Court goes beyond these well-established objective indicators of contemporary values. Governor Perry vetoed the legislation on June 17, 2001. In Enmund, supra, at 789, we invalidated the death penalty for mere participation in a robbery in which an accomplice took a life, a punishment not permitted in 28 of the death penalty States 78%. . Georgia, per curiam , a requirement that the sentencer be empowered to take into account all mitigating circumstances, Lockett v. Retrieved December 13, 2020.
Atkins v. Virginia
. Footnote The doctor interviewed Atkins, members of his family, and deputies at the jail where he had been incarcerated for the preceding 18 months. At re-sentencing, a different jury again fixed Atkins punishment at death, and the circuit court imposed the death penalty in accordance with the jury verdict. STATE POLL DATE RESPONSE QUESTION TX Houston Chronicle Feb. They include prohibition of the death penalty for "ordinary" murder, Godfrey, 446 U. But if the practical difficulties do not appear, and if the other States share the Court's perceived moral consensus that all mental retardation renders the death penalty inappropriate for all crimes, then that majority will presumably follow suit.
Atkins v. Commonwealth :: 2003 :: Supreme Court of Virginia Decisions :: Virginia Case Law :: Virginia Law :: US Law :: Justia
Once the Court admits as it does that mental retardation does not render the offender morally blameless, ante, at 13—14, there is no basis for saying that the death penalty is never appropriate retri- bution, no matter how heinous the crime. Furthermore, a commission on capital punishment in Illinois has recently recommended that Illinois adopt a statute prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded offenders. Later, and particularly after World War II, there ensued a steady and dramatic decline in executions. The board concluded that Bowden understood the nature of his crime and his punishment and therefore that execution, despite his mental deficiencies, was permissible. That bare number of States alone — 18 — should be enough to convince any reasonable person that no "national consensus" exists.
ATKINS v. VIRGINIA.
. Barnett and David M. By definition, such individuals have substantial limitations not shared by the general population. They, like lunatics, suffered a "deficiency in will" rendering them unable to tell right from wrong. Wainwright, modern "'standards of decency,'" as evinced by objective indicia, the most important of which is "legislation enacted by the country's legislatures," Penry v. In 1990, Kentucky and Tennessee enacted statutes similar to those in Georgia and Maryland, as did New Mexico in 1991, and Arkansas, Colorado, Washington, Indiana, and Kansas in 1993 and 1994. Moreover, even in States allowing the execution of mentally retarded offenders, the practice is uncommon.
Atkins v. Virginia: Case Brief
Since Gregg, our jurisprudence has consistently confined the imposition of the death penalty to a narrow category of the most serious crimes. If this unsupported claim has any substance to it which I doubt it might support a due process claim in all criminal prosecutions of the mentally retarded; but it is hard to see how it has anything to do with an other constitutional imperative. Code 35-36-9-2 through 35-36-9-6; Kan. After spending the day drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, petitioner Daryl Renard Atkins and a partner in crime drove to a convenience store, intending to rob a customer. The victims of these offenses provided graphic depictions of petitioner's violent tendencies: He hit one over the head with a beer bottle, id.