Support Intelligent, In-Depth, Trustworthy Journalism.
Leave your feedback
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn a Florida rule that used an IQ score of 70 as the determining factor in deeming individuals mentally fit for execution. For a closer look at the decision, Judy Woodruff talks to Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal.
The U.S. Supreme Court today declared a Florida rule used to determine if a person is mentally fit for execution to be unconstitutional.
The court has previously ruled that states cannot execute individuals deemed to have an intellectual disability. Florida had been using an I.Q. score of 70 as its determining factor. But the justices, in a 5-to-4 decision, said that was too rigid.
For more on the decision, we turn, as always, to Marcia Coyle of "The National Law Journal."
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal:
Great to have you back.
So, Marcia, give us — just remind us of the background of this case. What was it about?
Well, Freddie Lee Hall had been convicted of murder, a murder that took place in 1978. He and another man had abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who was seven months pregnant in order to steal her car in connection with a robbery. They also later killed — shot and killed a police officer.
He's really been on death row since I think about 1982. He brought the challenge to the Supreme Court today, that the court decided today, in which he said that Florida's rigid 70 I.Q. score cutoff violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
He had scored just above that, I guess, 71.
He did. He scored a 71, right. And Florida's law is 70 or less.
And the justices, 5-4 majority, ruled that it's unconstitutional to have such a specific cutoff.
Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority. And he said several things. First of all, he said the medical and scientific communities generally look at the I.Q. score as being imprecise. And in order to account for that imprecision, they use something like — well, what is known as the standard error of measurement, which produces a range, an I.Q. range.
In Mr. Hall's case, he would have fallen within the range, somewhere from 66 to 76. Florida didn't consider the standard error of measurement. It was — it was a rigid cutoff. He also said that a majority — a substantial majority of the states now use or consider the standard error of measurement. Florida doesn't.
And, finally, he said that every state legislature since the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 barring execution of the intellectually disabled, that every state legislature that has considered this issue has acted in a way contrary to Florida.
Put that together, the standard error of measurement, that a substantial number of states use that, that the number of states that are opposite to Florida shows, he says, strong proof that there is an evolving standard of the — of society, a national consensus that a rigid cutoff is inhumane.
And then the dissenters, or the opinion written by Justice Alito, wrote, there is no — they didn't think that there is a consensus.
Justice Alito questioned Justice Kennedy's statistics on what the states are doing.
He said there was no consensus back in 2002, there is no consensus now that would justify invalidating Florida's rule. He also said that the court was basing its decision — decision primary on the — primarily on the standards of a small group of professional, elite organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association.
And psychological — so, Marcia, you were telling me this is going to have both immediate and longer-term repercussions.
The immediate impact is going to be for Mr. Hall and others in approximately nine states that have either rigid cutoffs or laws that could be interpreted to be — have rigid I.Q. cutoffs. They will get a chance to show additional evidence that they are intellectually disabled.
But it also, I think, signals, Judy, that even though — this was really the first time since 2002 that the court delved deeply into intellectual disability and the death penalty, and it sends a message, I think, to the states that sentencing courts have to be open to additional evidence in order to make a very difficult decision here.
So, it's more than just Florida. It's a number of other states that are going to be paying close attention to this.
Yes, I agree. Yes.
Marcia Coyle, thank you.
My pleasure, Judy.
Watch the Full Episode
Support Provided By:
Support PBS NewsHour:
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Additional Support Provided By: