Hamm v. Smith · ¶128

When Atkins's case made it to this Court, he contended that Penry's individualized approach was insufficient to protect nonculpable defendants under the Eighth Amendment. In particular, Atkins argued that juries could not make “reliable sorting decisions among defendants with mental retardation” and had not “cull[ed] the more culpable from those whose disabilities [should] preclude” a death sentence. Brief for Petitioner in Atkins v. Virginia, O. T. 2001, No. 00–8452, p. 39. Atkins therefore urged the Court to replace Penry's “case-by-case administration” with a “categorical rule” barring imposition of the death penalty on any “perso[n] with mental retardation.” Brief for Petitioner in No. 00–8452, at 39–40. The Court ultimately agreed with Atkins, holding that “the execution of mentally retarded criminals” violates the Eighth Amendment. Atkins, 536 U. S., at 321.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.