A. Roper v. Simmons found this sentencing to be unconstitutional.
B. Individuals with intellectual disabilities are only allowed to be sentenced to death for homicide.
C. They are not over the age of 18, so they cannot understand the severity of their crimes.
D. It is considered cruel and unusual, because by the nature of their diagnosis, these individuals have a lessened ability to understand the severity of their crimes.
C. They are not over the age of 18, so they cannot understand the severity of their crimes.
The statement "A. Roper v. Simmons found this sentencing to be unconstitutional" is not entirely clear. It implies that the Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons ruled a certain type of sentencing as unconstitutional, but it does not specify which sentencing is being referred to. Roper v. Simmons, decided by the Supreme Court in 2005, specifically found that imposing the death penalty on individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime is unconstitutional.
The statement "Individuals with intellectual disabilities are only allowed to be sentenced to death for homicide" is incorrect. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals with intellectual disabilities (also known as intellectual developmental disorders). This ruling applies to all crimes, not just homicide.
The statement "They are not over the age of 18, so they cannot understand the severity of their crimes" is incorrect as a generalization. While age can be a factor in culpability and understanding the consequences of one's actions, it is not the sole determinant. Many individuals under the age of 18 are considered capable of understanding the severity of their crimes, and they can be held accountable for their actions through the juvenile justice system.
The statement "It is considered cruel and unusual, because by the nature of their diagnosis, these individuals have a lessened ability to understand the severity of their crimes" is partially correct. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute individuals with intellectual disabilities because they may have a diminished capacity to appreciate the nature and consequences of their actions. The Court recognized that such individuals may have limitations in understanding the judicial process and their role in it. However, it is important to note that the severity of the intellectual disability is a factor considered by the courts when determining an individual's capacity.
These statements are related to the case of Roper v. Simmons and the issue of sentencing individuals with intellectual disabilities to death. I will explain the background of the case and the reasons why the sentencing was found to be unconstitutional.
In the case of Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime. The case specifically addressed the issue of sentencing minors to death, but it also touched on the broader question of whether certain categories of individuals, such as those with intellectual disabilities, should be exempt from the death penalty.
One factor mentioned in your statements is that individuals with intellectual disabilities have a lesser ability to understand the severity of their crimes. This argument can be supported by research and psychiatric assessments that show individuals with intellectual disabilities may have cognitive impairments that hinder their capacity to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. This reduced understanding can make it questionable to impose the harshest of punishments, such as the death sentence, on these individuals.
Additionally, your statements mention the age factor, suggesting that individuals with intellectual disabilities are not over the age of 18 and therefore lack the maturity and cognitive development to fully grasp the gravity of their actions. This aligns with the reasoning in Roper v. Simmons, where the Supreme Court found that it is unconstitutional to execute individuals who were juveniles at the time of the crime due to their lack of cognitive and emotional maturity.
Another argument against sentencing individuals with intellectual disabilities to death is that it violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The nature of an intellectual disability may inherently diminish a person's ability to understand the severity of their actions, making the imposition of the death penalty both excessive and disproportionate.
In summary, the sentencing of individuals with intellectual disabilities to death has been deemed unconstitutional due to several reasons including their reduced ability to comprehend the gravity of their actions and the violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.