Hamm v. Smith · ¶120
“Some of our most `egregious' cases have been those in which we have granted relief based on an unfounded Eighth Amendment claim,” and Atkins is certainly near the top of the list. Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. 863, 905–906 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring). Atkins's rejection of “the historical meaning of the [Eighth] Amendmen[t],” see Ramos, 590 U. S., at 106, has denied the justice governments have given to murder victims from time immemorial, Glossip, 576 U. S., at 905–906 (Thomas, J., concurring). And it degrades the mildly intellectually disabled by putting them “on a level with . . . infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals”—those who cannot “ `have known better.' ” C. S. Lewis, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, 13 Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy 147, 151 (1987); see Atkins, 536 U. S., at 318, 319–320. In a future case, the Court should overrule Atkins and restore “the…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.