Essay Sample on Atkins v. Virginia Case and The Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment, which is a part of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the constitution), guarantees that disproportionate bail along with immoderate fines will not take place. Additionally and more importantly, the Eighth Amendment guarantees that cruel and/or unusual punishment will not be enforced. Daryl Renard Atkins questioned the Eighth Amendment in the Atkins V. Virginia case on June 20, 2002. After being charged with various offenses including abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder, Atkins was condemned to death. A forensic psychologist testified on Atkins' behalf during the punishment phase of his trial, stating that Atkins was mildly mentally impaired and thus could not be sentenced to death since it would be a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. After conducting extensive research into the case, it is evident that Atkins' being sentenced to death twice was unconstitutional.

On August 16, a summer night in 1996, Daryl Renard Atkins, an 18-year-old high school dropout, and a friend (William Jones) sought to buy beer. However, the night took a turn when they abducted a serviceman in the 7-eleven parking lot. After being dissatisfied with the $60 they discovered in his wallet, Atkins and his friend then obliged the serviceman to withdraw $200 from an ATM. They then drove him to a deserted area, where Atkins shot the serviceman eight times, murdering him despite the victims' pleas for mercy. Two additional individuals who became suspects were tracked down and detained after being observed on the ATM's CCTV cameras. After, several issues - including inconsistencies between Atkins and the other accomplices - allegations as to who fired the trigger, and what transpired. Atkins' cellmate came forward and publicly acknowledged that Atkins had confessed to being the one who gunned down the serviceman. Jones also testified against Atkins and was billed to life imprisonment as a result. These two components persuaded the jury, which led to Atkins being found guilty of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. One witness in favor of Atkins, a psychologist, claimed that Atkins is mildly mentally disabled, affecting his ability to understand what he is doing, therefore allegedly proving his innocence. Despite Atkins' attempts to overturn his conviction by alleging it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the defendant was found guilty and condemned to death. The court of appeals in Virginia’ affirmed the judgment. However, shortly after, demanded a second hearing due to a misleading verdict form used in the trial court. The prosecution relied on the crime being perpetrated in a heinous manner as well as Atkins’ background record indicating that there was a high probability of him conducting yet another offense, rendering him dangerous to society. The prosecution also used the Penry V. Lynaugh case to refute Atkins' assertion. The same witness testified again, rebutting that Atkins' mental condition meant he didn't understand what he was doing, making it difficult for him to distinguish between right and wrong. In the constitution, there's a restriction declaring that mentally ill criminals cannot be killed in order to continue “ constructing and applying the Eighth Amendment in the light of our “evolving standards of decency”. Nonetheless, Atkins's death penalty was maintained on June 20th, 2002. As a result of the trial, the ruling was 6-3 in favor of Atkins since the execution of mentally disabled criminals is considered a violation of the Eighth Amendment ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, according to the USSC.

If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would deem the sentencing unconstitutional. Executing one who is mentally unstable may easily be regarded as an infringement of the Eighth Amendment. Although the dissenting opinion states that there's no specific address on whether or not killing mentally disabled criminals is taken into account cruel or unusual punishment, this additionally means there is area for interpretation, and it's up to one's morality to make your mind up whether killing somebody who has very little understanding of what they're doing and lacks management over their impulses and choices is considered 'cruel punishment.' Furthermore, several states argue that it is not an appropriate nor suitable penalty for developmentally delayed individuals. The number of states adhering to this regulation has accelerated from two in 1989 to 18 in 2002. The shift is examined as a factor in the Eighth Amendment's requirement for evolving standards of decency. Meaning by not using the death penalty on intellectually deficient individuals, society is not violating the Eight Amendment. As a result, there would be less room for conflict and rebellion. As people may justify violating other amendments within the Bill of Rights by saying if the Court can do it so can they. Plus, people may retaliate against their governor if they feel their amendments are not being respected, which is likely to happen. Thirdly, killing an intellectually handicapped person has yet to be demonstrated to prevent similar acts from occurring; as a result, the murder has no impact, making it 'cruel and unusual punishment,' and hence violating the Eighth Amendment. Due to his impairments, Atkins was not in his right mind. You might wonder how to identify if someone is truly intellectually impaired or if they are faking it to get out of extreme punishment for their crime. People with an IQ of less than 70 are deemed mentally disabled. Atkins' IQ was tested for court, and he received a 59. He has an IQ below that of a 'normal' individual, making him "mildly mentally retarded." As a result, he could not reason logically and had low personal culpability.

Furthermore, Atkins' disability hindered his capacity to interact with his defense attorney, resulting in his case not being carried out fairly to its full potential and putting him at a disadvantage in comparison to 'normal people.' Due to these factors, he should not be treated or punished in the same way that "normal people" are, which is why executing him would be a cruel punishment, thus a breach of his Eighth Amendment rights.

On June the 20th during 2002, the United States Supreme Court had a 6-3 vote in favor of Atkins. Although he was initially convicted to death twice by lesser courts, the retrials worked in his favor, and he was eventually pardoned by the highest court and sentenced to life in prison instead. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, holds that putting mentally ill individuals to death is unconstitutional because their infirmities are deemed to obscure their judgment, reasoning, and impulse control. According to the dissenting opinion, the Eighth Amendment does not directly address offenders' mental stability, hence the US Supreme Court cannot rule on whether it is constitutional to place a mentally impaired person on death row based on the terms of the amendment. However, the argument wasn’t strong enough to convince the juries. The ruling of this case was crucial since it was believed to have an impact on future cases, and on that, they were accurate. The Hall V. Florida case was similar in that Freddie Hall was mentally impaired and was condemned to death for his role in a murder. They cited the Atkins V. Virginia case to support Hall's case throughout the trial. In the end, the decision was 5-4 in favor of Hall, and the Atkins case was a major source of protection for Freddie Hall. He was demonstrating the significance and impact of the court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia case. 

In short, the judgment of the lower courts to sentence Atkins to death was unconstitutional. Murdering an intellectually disabled person is unconstitutional since it violates the Eighth Amendment, which has been demonstrated several times. A number of states, for example, do not consider it a suitable punishment; it has yet to be proven to create deterrence and retribution (which is supposed to be the goal of the death sentence); and mentally ill persons have a lack of control over their emotions, logic, and judgment. All of those fall under the same heading, demonstrating that cruel punishment would be carried out if Daryl Renard Atkins, a mentally disabled individual, was executed for his crimes rather than condemned to life in prison. Recent developments have resulted in a re-evaluation of the case since it has been brought to the judges' attention that Atkins may not be as mentally impaired as he claimed. Evidence supporting this is that he re-tested his IQ and received a score in the '70s, placing him in the typical person's IQ category.

Furthermore, he had adequate communication skills with his attorneys during the trials, something a mentally disabled person is unlikely to possess. This newfound evidence challenged essential factors that had previously backed his argument and are likely to result in a significant shift in his case. In all, the evidence reviewed throughout this paper supports the fact that Atkins death sentencing was unconstitutional as it is a breach of the Eighth Amendment.