Hamm v. Smith · ¶184

A case-by-case approach without categorical IQ rules also runs contrary to Atkins's very premise. As I noted at the outset, Atkins rejected Penry's regime, under which the relationship between a capital defendant's intellectual capability and his culpability would be assessed on an individualized, case-by-case basis. In its place, Atkins adopted a categorical rule under which IQ would necessarily play a central role. For this rule to function in a defensible way, the Court needs to elucidate sound and reputable methods for dealing with multiple IQ scores. If courts relegate the 70-IQ cutoff to a perfunctory formality and the main point of contention in Atkins cases becomes an individualized assessment of a defendant's adaptive functioning, then the Atkins Court's basis for imposing a categorical rule will disintegrate.

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