Execution of Mentally Retarded Ruled Cruel

(Washington, DC-June 21, 2002) Leaders of the American Humanist Association give high praise to today's Supreme Court ruling that execution of the mentally retarded is "unconstitutionally cruel." AHA executive director Tony Hileman reacts, "It is a triumph that the Supreme Court recognized the severity and injustice of existing capital punishment laws and has taken a bold step in the right direction."

Since people with intellectual disabilities are at a higher risk of being convicted and sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit, the Court's ruling will save innocent Americans from irrevocable penalties. This reversal of earlier court opinions reflects society's changing attitude concerning both the justice of our current capital punishment system and the meaning of "cruel and unusual."

Hileman continues: "The freedom and dignity of the individual person is a central Humanist value. The United States' administration of capital punishment lacks rationale and fairness and, until these deficiencies are addressed, we must acknowledge that use of the death penalty is dangerous to individual life and liberty.

"In identifying the unconstitutionality of executing the mentally retarded, the Court is recognizing that there are mistakes in the system and is beginning to take steps to correct them."

As seen in AHA's June 2000 coalition statement with the American Ethical Union, AHA continues supporting "moratoriums on carrying out capital verdicts and opposing legislation that would make executions more likely."