Editorial: Execution ruling is thoughtful

Friday, June 21, 2002 | 9:40 a.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court was correct Thursday in ruling that the execution of mentally retarded prisoners is unconstitutionally cruel. The 6-3 ruling will affect Nevada, which is one of 20 states with no prohibitions against such executions. Two points central to the majority view, which even some of the most ardent defenders of the death penalty would acknowledge as compelling, have to do with a mentally retarded murderer's "culpability" and the concept of an evolving public attitude.

The case prompting the ruling concerned a Virginia inmate who had kidnapped an Air Force enlisted man, robbed him for beer money, and then shot him to death. The killer's lawyers argued that his IQ of 59 -- when anything under 70 is considered retarded -- rendered him less culpable and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. The state of Virginia sentenced him to death anyway, arguing that he was just as culpable as murderers who are not retarded. This argument has been going on for years and now the Supreme Court's ruling has ended it. "Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability," the majority opinion ruled. It's hard to argue with the majority's reasoning that mentally retarded people are more apt to act on impulse or be swayed by others, and that they have diminished abilit y to learn from experiences and engage in logical reasoning.

The other main point was that the public attitude on this issue has changed and is continuing to change. In 1989, when the court ruled that retarded murderers may be executed, only two states among those permitting the death penalty specifically forbade it. Today they have been joined by 16 other states. The point is that society evolves and the laws of the land should evolve with it -- lest punishments like stocks and flogging remain legal.

One potential trouble spot is that the court has left it up to the states to determine how to judge the mental capacities of accused murderers. If a lack of uniformity develops in how to define mental retardation, and in its application to the death penalty, the court could find itself revisiting the issue as appeals mount. In total, however, the ruling reflects the opinions of a growing number of people not just in this country, but around the world.