Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Atkins v. Virginia

No description
by

Taylor Murray

on 24 October 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Atkins v. Virginia

Atkins v. Virginia S
P
E
N
S
E
R T
A
Y
L
O
R D
O
W
O
N R
A
C
H
E
L Historical Significance:
The 6-3 ruling in the Supreme Court banned the punishment of the death penalty for any person that is mentally disabled. Background:
Daryl Atkins was convicted of abduction, robbery, and murder.
During the trial, a psychologist testified that Atkins was mentally retarded.
Atkins was sentenced to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a retrial due to “a misleading verdict form.” Background cont.:
At the second trial, the court ruled that Atkins’ mental state was mild and the jury again sentenced Atkins to death.
The Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh to reject Atkins’ contention that he could not be put to death because he was mentally retarded. In the Supreme Court:
Question: Is the execution of mentally retarded persons “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that, yes, the execution of mentally disadvantaged criminals is unconstitutional and violates the Eighth Amendment. This type of execution is seen as excessive and the constitution places considerable restrictions on the States’ ability to execute a mentally retarded person. Reasoning:
The court reasoned that due to the number of states that have outlawed the execution of mentally retarded criminals, a national consensus against these executions had emerged. The court also raised the concern of the justification of crimes and the trials of criminals with a lessened mental capacity, saying there are different standards to be met.
Full transcript