Hamm v. Smith · ¶81

The Atkins Court promised that it would allow States to define mental retardation. It admitted that there was “serious disagreement” about “determining which offenders are in fact retarded.” Id., at 317. Accordingly, the Court decided to “ `leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences.' ” Ibid. So, despite the Court's holding that the Eighth Amendment forbids “the execution of mentally retarded offenders,” whether an offender was “mentally retarded” would depend on state rules. Ibid.

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