 |
|
Texas sentenced a man with limited
intellectual
ability to death using unscientific medical standards to determine is eligibility. Photo: ACLU. |
The case hinges on what
constitutes intellectual disability.
Last year a lower court ruled
that Moore was ineligible for the death penalty. At the time of his sentencing
the medical standards used to determine his eligibility were unscientific.
The appeals court threw that
case out because their determination was based on a standard derived from the
character of Lennie from the John Steinbeck novel, Of Mice and Men.
It will take a while for the
case to actually be heard. At that time there may be a full number of Justices
again on the Supreme Court. This case should challenge the precedent of using a
mid-century, outdated work of fiction as a standard for jurisprudence.
The court has decided not to
hear the other argument that would invalidate the death penalty as an option
for Moore. It has been argued that the 35 years on death row, in solitary
confinement, qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.
This is a surprising turn by
the court, and hopefully has more to do with the danger of an even split among
the Justices than a disregard for Moore’s situation.
Solitary confinement has come
into question in recent years for the impact it can have on inmates and
subsequently its constitutionality. Thirty-five years seems like an
exceptionally cruel punishment, especially when plenty of other convicted
murders don’t face such harsh penalties.
Moore is African American,
which may become more of an issue considering SCOTUS will also hear the case of
Duane Buck, who’s sentencing hearing features overtly racist testimony, which
calls into question whether or not he was given the death sentence because he’s
black.
Race and the death penalty are
issues at the heart of several other cases which SCOTUS has agreed to hear in
the near future, wherein the race of the convicted may have weighed heavily
into verdicts and sentencing.
Post a Comment