ARTICLE: Determining Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases: A State-by-State Analysis

J. LaPrade, J. Worrall
{"title":"ARTICLE: Determining Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases: A State-by-State Analysis","authors":"J. LaPrade, J. Worrall","doi":"10.21428/b6e95092.42571576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Moore v. Texas (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas death penalty definitions of intellectual disability were inadequate because they strayed too far from clinical definitions. This study examines how each state defines intellectual disability with regard to death penalty eligibility. It reveals a wide variation in the standards used by states, with no clear consensus on definitions of intellectual disability or who should measure it. Variations pertain to age at onset, proof of intellectual disability status at the time of the crime, burden of proof required to make the intellectual disability determination, and who makes the final decision. Implications and suggestions for the future are discussed.","PeriodicalId":230899,"journal":{"name":"Volume 3, Issue 2","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 3, Issue 2","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21428/b6e95092.42571576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In Moore v. Texas (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas death penalty definitions of intellectual disability were inadequate because they strayed too far from clinical definitions. This study examines how each state defines intellectual disability with regard to death penalty eligibility. It reveals a wide variation in the standards used by states, with no clear consensus on definitions of intellectual disability or who should measure it. Variations pertain to age at onset, proof of intellectual disability status at the time of the crime, burden of proof required to make the intellectual disability determination, and who makes the final decision. Implications and suggestions for the future are discussed.
第6条:在死刑案件中确定智力残疾:逐个国家的分析
在摩尔诉德克萨斯州案(2017年)中,美国最高法院裁定,德克萨斯州对智力残疾的死刑定义不充分,因为他们偏离了临床定义。本研究考察了每个州在死刑资格方面如何定义智力残疾。报告显示,各国使用的标准差异很大,在智力残疾的定义或由谁来衡量方面没有明确的共识。不同的规定涉及起病年龄、犯罪时智力残疾状况的证明、确定智力残疾所需的举证责任以及由谁作出最终决定。讨论了对未来的影响和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信