TASH Resolution Opposing the Execution of Persons Labeled as Having Mental Retardation

Statement of Purpose

TASH unconditionally opposes the execution of persons labeled as having mental retardation . Although TASH promotes the full participation of all persons with disabilities in society, one of its many missions pinpoints the United States Supreme Court's current effort to decide whether it is constitutionally right or wrong to execute persons considered and/or classified as having mental retardation. TASH believes that executing these persons is so repugnant that, in every case, it violates current American standards of decency.

Rationale

1. Thirty states currently prohibit the execution of persons labeled as having mental retardation. TASH is committed to assisting the remaining twenty states to develop legislation that will prohibit the execution of persons with these disabilities.

2. TASH recognizes that any persons, including those labeled as having mental retardation can commit capital crimes. TASH calls for a more humane and just determination of what the sentence should be for individuals with disabilities.

3. Societal discrimination, lack of education, as well as an individual's personal abilities affect how persons labeled as having mental retardation perform within society. Given the nature of discrimination against people with disabilities, as well as the real challenges that these individuals may experience in communicating and processing information, it is to be expected that when accused of a crime, such persons may inappropriately blame themselves, assume responsibility for the criminal conduct of others, fail to remain silent in their own defense, provide false confessions, or give criminal justice authorities the responses they seek without regard for the truthfulness of such responses.

4. An accused person's communication and thinking abilities are significant at every stage of a capital case, including initial police questioning, determining competency to stand trial, the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, the sentencing phase, and all subsequent proceedings, including consideration of clemency. The behavior and responses of a person labeled as having mental retardation may appear unusual or different and may result in misunderstanding, trigger special scrutiny from police officers, or result in unfair proceedings at any stage of the criminal justice process.

5. In these cases, Miranda warnings are often meaningless because they are presented without appropriate accommodations to a person's disability or vulnerable circumstance. Some individuals labeled as having mental retardation are so adept at combating and avoiding stigmatization they fail to be candid about their disabilities when to do so could be in their best interest. For these reasons, it is likely that persons with these disabilities may be unable to respond voluntarily and effectively in their own defense.

6. Defense lawyers may fail to recognize the vulnerability of their clients, may be ignorant or unskilled in how to support these persons in the criminal justice process, or may fail to recognize an accused individual's difficulty or inability to assist in his own defense in court proceedings.

7. A prosecutor may call for the death penalty or a judge and jury may impose the death sentence without considering the status of disability as a significant mitigating factor and without understanding the impact of societal discrimination or the vulnerability inherent in having a disability such as those described.

8. Taking all of these factors into account, persons labeled as having mental retardation do not have the opportunity for a rational, individualized, fair determination of sentencing.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT TASH, an international advocacy association of people with disabilities, their family members, other advocates and people who work in the disability field, believes that it is beyond the ability of the criminal justice system adequately to assure the fairness of death sentences in these cases and that such sentences are, in all cases, a clear abridgement of the rights of persons considered and/or classified as having mental retardation.

* * *

Sources that influenced this document

American Bar Association. Death without justice: A guide for examining the administration of the death penalty in the United States. (See the section on mentally retarded and mentally ill defendants and offenders, pp. 55-61). http://www.net.org/irr/FINALJUNE28.pdf.

Human Rights Watch: Beyond reason: The death penalty and offenders with mental retardation. http://www.hrw.org.

Earnest Paul McCarver v. State of North Carolina. The Amicus Curiae Brief of The American Association on Mental Retardation, The Arc of the United States, et al. http://www.aamr.org.