ARTICLE
The Scientific and the Social in Implementing Atkins v. Virginia
Natalie A. Pifer,
Natalie A. Pifer
Natalie A. Pifer: ([email protected]) is a PhD student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine. She is grateful to her mentors Elliott Currie, Mona Lynch, and Keramet Reiter for their advice and careful readings throughout this project. Philip Goodman also provided especially helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, which was presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association. Finally, she thanks the three anonymous reviewers whose thoughtful comments helped strengthen this article.
Search for more papers by this authorNatalie A. Pifer,
Natalie A. Pifer
Natalie A. Pifer: ([email protected]) is a PhD student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine. She is grateful to her mentors Elliott Currie, Mona Lynch, and Keramet Reiter for their advice and careful readings throughout this project. Philip Goodman also provided especially helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, which was presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association. Finally, she thanks the three anonymous reviewers whose thoughtful comments helped strengthen this article.
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) categorically exempts intellectually disabled defendants from execution, yet some constitutionally suspect punishments suggest a gap between law and practice. This article moves beyond critiquing Atkins’ formal implementation to provide a decentered analysis of the Atkins gap focused on the category of intellectual disability. It explores how drawing boundaries around intellectual disability in capital cases requires law to grapple with fluid scientific and social constructs through a study of how courts operationalize intellectual disability in capital cases. It draws from literatures considering the construction of intellectual disability and law's relationship to the scientific and the social and finds that this intersection first enables a conceptual disconnect between scientific and legal constructions of intellectual disability and, second, invites the use of stereotypes to inform the category. These processes undermine Atkins’—and other categorical exemptions’—ability to functionally limit extreme punishments and also reveal law as mutually constitutive.
References
- American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Google Scholar
- Aronson, Jay D., and Simon A. Cole. 2009. Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the Debate Over Capital Punishment in the United States. Law & Social Inquiry 34 (3): 603–33.
- Bandes, Susan. 2008. Framing Wrongful Convictions. Utah Law Review 5 (1): 5–24.
- Barger, Judith. M. 2008. Avoiding Atkins v. Virginia: How States Are Circumventing Both the Letter and the Spirit of the Court's Mandate. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 13: 215–38.
- Blume, John H., Sheri Lynn Johnson, and Christopher Seeds. 2008a. An Empirical Look at Atkins v. Virginia and Its Application in Capital Cases. Tennessee Law Review 76: 625–39
- Blume, John H. 2008b. Of Atkins and Men: Deviations from Clinical Definitions of Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases. Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy 18: 689–733.
- Blume, John H.. 2010. Implementing (or Nullifying) Atkins?: The Impact of State Procedural Choices on Outcome in Capital Cases Where Intellectual Disability Is at Issue. Unpublished Manuscript, Cornell Law School.
- Bonnie, Richard J., and Katherine Gustafson. 2007. The Challenge of Implementing Atkins v. Virginia: How Legislatures and Courts Can Promote Accurate Assessments and Adjudications of Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases. University of Richmond Law Review 41: 811–60.
-
Calavita, Kitty. 2010. Invitation to Law and Society: An Introduction to the Study of Real Law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226089980.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Carbado, Devon W. 2009. Yellow by Law. California Law Review 97 (3): 633–92.
- Cassel, Elaine. 2004. Justice Deferred, Justice Denied: The Practical Effect of Atkins v. Virginia. Widener Law Review 11: 51–58.
- Castles, Katherine. 2004. “Nice, Average Americans”: Postwar Parents’ Groups and the Defense of the Normal Family. In Mental Retardation in America: A Historical Reader, ed. Steven Noll and James W. Trent, Jr., 362–63. New York: New York University Press.
- Cheng, Jesse. 2010. Frontloading Mitigation: The “Legal” and the “Human” in Death Penalty Defense. Law & Social Inquiry 35 (1): 39–65.
- Cohen, Andrew. 2012. Of Mice and Men: The Execution of Marvin Wilson. The Atlantic, August 8. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/of-mice-and-men-the-execution-of-marvin-wilson/260713/(accessed June 12, 2013).
-
Cole, Simon, and
Jay D. Aronson. 2009. Blinded by Science on the Road to Abolition? In The Road to Abolition?: The Future of Capital Punishment in the United States, ed. Ogeltree Charles and Sarat Austin, 46–71. New York: New York University Press.
10.18574/nyu/9780814762172.003.0002 Google Scholar
- Culbert, Jennifer L. 2007 Dead Certainty: The Death Penalty and the Problem of Judgment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Death Penalty Information Center. (2013). The Death Penalty in 2013: Year End Report. Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center.
- DeMatteo, David, Geoffrey Marczyk, and Michele Pich. 2007. A National Survey of State Legislation Defining Mental Retardation: Implications for Policy and Practice After Atkins. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 25 (6): 781–802.
- Dillard, J. Amy. 2011. And Death Shall Have No Dominion: How to Achieve the Categorical Exemption of Mentally Retarded Defendants from Execution. University of Richmond Law Review 45: 961–1008.
-
Dorr, Gregory Michael. 2006. Defective or Disabled?: Race, Medicine, and Eugenics in Progressive Era Virginia and Alabama. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5 (4): 1–34.
10.1017/S1537781400003224 Google Scholar
- Duvall Julie C., and Richard J. Morris. 2006. Assessing Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases: Critical Issues for Psychology and Psychological Practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 37 (6): 658–65.
- Ellis, James W. 2003. Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty: A Guide to State Legislative Issues. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter 27 (1): 11–24.
-
Engel, David M., and
Fran W. Munger. 2003. Rights of Inclusion: Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226208343.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Flynn, James R. 2006. Tethering the Elephant: Capital Cases, IQ, and the Flynn Effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 12 (2): 170–89.
- Frohmann, Lisa, and Elizabeth Mertz. 1994. Legal Reform and Social Construction: Violence, Gender, and the Law. Law & Social Inquiry 19 (4): 829–52.
- Garland, David. 2010. Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.
- Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
- Haney, Craig. 2002. Making Law Modern: Toward a Contextual Model of Justice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8 (1): 3–63.
- Jasanoff, Shelia. 2006 Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (2): 328–41.
- Kaplan, Paul. 2012. Murder Stories: Ideological Narratives in Capital Punishment. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
- Kevles, Daniel J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kreimer, Seth F. 2005. Truth Machines and Consequences: The Light and Dark Sides of “Accuracy” in Criminal Justice. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 60: 655–74.
- LaChance, Daniel. 2007. Last Words, Last Meals, and Last Stands: Agency and Individuality in the Modern Execution Process. Law & Social Inquiry 32 (3): 701–24.
- Lombardo, Paul. A. 2010. Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell, Vol. 60. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Lopez, Ian Haney. 2006. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York University Press.
- Lynch, Mona. 2000a. The Disposal of Inmate #85271. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 20: 3–34.
- Lynch, Mona.. 2000b. On-Line Executions: The Symbolic Use of the Electric Chair in Cyberspace. Political and Legal Anthropology Review 23 (2): 1–20.
-
Lynch, Mona.. 2002a. Capital Punishment as Moral Imperative Pro-Death-Penalty Discourse on the Internet. Punishment & Society 4 (2): 213–36.
10.1177/14624740222228554 Google Scholar
- Lynch, Mona.. 2002b. Sarat's “When the State Kills and the Transformation of Death Penalty Scholarship.” Law & Social Inquiry 27 (4): 903–21.
-
Miller, Kent. S., and
Michael L Radelet. 1993. Executing the Mentally Ill: The Criminal Justice System and the Case of Alvin Ford. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.4135/9781483326504 Google Scholar
- Montagu, Ashley. 1999. Intelligence, IQ, and Race. In Race and IQ, ed. Montagu Ashley, 190–206. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Noll, Steven. 1991. Southern Strategies for Handling the Black Feeble-Minded: From Social Control to Profound Indifference. Journal of Policy History 3 (2): 1–22.
10.1017/S0898030600004826 Google Scholar
- Perlin, Michael L. 1992. On Sanism. SMU Law Review 46: 373–407.
-
Perlin, Michael L.. 2000. The Hidden Prejudice: Mental Disability on Trial. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.1037/10379-000 Google Scholar
- Prentky, Robert A., Eric Janus, Howard Barbaree, Barbara K. Schwartz, and Martin P. Kafka. 2006. Sexually Violent Predators in the Courtroom: Science on Trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 12 (4): 357–93.
- Rollins, Joe. 2002. AIDS, Law, and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Law & Society Review 36 (1): 161–92.
- Rudolf, John. 2012. Marvin Wilson Execution: Texas Puts Man with 61 IQ to Death. Huffington Post, August 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/marvin-wilson-execution-texas_n_1753968.html (accessed July 23, 2014).
- Sarat, Austin. 2002. When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
-
Sarat, Austin.. 2014. Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.1515/9780804791724 Google Scholar
- Sarat, Austin, Madeline Chan Maia Cole, Melissa Lang, Nicholas Schcolnik, Jasjaap Sidhu, and Nica Siegel. 2014. Scenes of Execution: Spectatorship, Political Responsibility, and State Killing in American Film. Law & Social Inquiry 39 (3): 690–719.
- Schopp, Robert F., Mario J. Scalora, and Marc Pearce. 1999. Expert Testimony and Professional Judgment: Psychological Expertise and Commitment as a Sexual Predator After Hendricks. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5 (1): 120–74.
- Slobogin, Christopher. 2014. Scientizing Culpability: The Implications of Hall v. Florida and the Possibility of a “Scientific Stare Decisis.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 23 (2): 415–30.
- Steiker, Carol. S., and Jordan M. Steiker. 2008. Atkins v. Virginia: Lessons from Substance and Procedure in the Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment. DePaul Law Review 57: 721–40.
- Tobolowsky, Peggy M. 2003. Atkins Aftermath: Identifying Mentally Retarded Offenders and Excluding Them from Execution. Journal of Legislation 30 (1): 77–141.
- Trahan, Donald E. 2004. Neuropsychological Report. Beaumont, TX: Think Progress. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wilson-psych-report.pdf (accessed May 11, 2015).
- Trent, James W., Jr. 1995. Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Weithorn, Lois A. 2008. Conceptual Hurdles to the Application of Atkins v. Virginia. Hastings Law Journal 59: 1203–34.
- White, Penny J. 2009. Treated Differently in Life but Not in Death: The Execution of the Intellectually Disabled After Atkins v. Virginia. Tennessee Law Review 76: 1–29.
-
Willrich, Michael. 1998. The Two Percent Solution: Eugenic Jurisprudence and the Socialization of American Law, 1900–1930. Law and History Review, 16 (1): 63–111.
10.2307/744321 Google Scholar
- Wood, Sarah E., Wendy Packman, Shelley Howell, and Bruce Bongar. 2013. A Failure to Implement: Analyzing State Responses to the Supreme Court's Directives in Atkins v. Virginia and Suggestions for a National Standard. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21:1– 30.
Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeJesus, 2012 WL 6553951 (2013).
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Gibson, 925 A.2d 167 (2007).
- Ex Parte Briseño, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Texas Crim. App. 2004).
- Ex Parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151 (Texas 2007).
- Ex Parte Hearn, 310 S.W.3d 424 (Texas 2010).
- Ex Parte Perkins, 851 So.2d 453 (Alabama 2002).
- Ex Parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660 (Texas 2004).
- Ex Parte van Alstyne, 239 S.W.3d 815 (Texas 2007).
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
- Goodin v. State of Mississippi, 2012 WL 6200444 (2012).
- Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014).
- Jackson v. State of Alabama, 963 So.2d 150 (2006).
- Lambert v. State of Oklahoma, 126 P.3d 646 (2005).
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
- Neal v. State of Texas, 256 S.W.3d 264 (2008).
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).
- Phillips v. State of Florida, 984 So.2d 503 (2008).
- Pickens v. State of Oklahoma, 126 P.3d 612 (2005).
- Rankin v. State of Arkansas, 948 S.W.2d 397 (1997).
- Rogers v. State of Indiana, 698 N.E.3d 1172 (1998).
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
- Smith v. State of Tennessee, 2011 WL 6318946 (2011).
- State of Arizona v. Grell, 2013 WL 85349 (2013).
- State of Tennessee v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (1994).
- van Tran v. State of Tennessee, 66 S.W.3d 790 (2001).
Statute Cited
- Retarded Defendant Act, Alabama Code § 15-24-1 (1975).
