A Value-Critical Policy Analysis of Georgia’s Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard of Proof of Intellectual Disability

Abstract

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) decision barred the execution of persons with intellectual disability, finding a national consensus and citing the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court simultaneously provided minimal specification with regard to adjudication procedures, such as the appropriate standard of proof of intellectual disability. One exception to the lack of instruction was the recommendation that states should generally conform to accepted clinical practice and norms, effectively positioning professional associations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities to take a critical role in this discourse. When states do not conform to clinical standards, persons with intellectual disability are placed at an increased risk for unlawful execution (Blume, Johnson, Marcus, & Paavola, 2014). Relatedly, persons with intellectual disability are placed at an increased risk for unlawful execution when states use a standard of proof higher than the lowest standard, a preponderance of the evidence (Blume et al., 2014; Saviello, 2015). Georgia is the only state in the nation to invoke the highest standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. Whereas the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is said to exist when jury members cannot say with moral certainty that the defendant is guilty (Burden of Proof, 2002), and is the standard used in criminal trials because such trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death (Reasonable Doubt, 2008), the two lower standards of preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence have traditional application to civil cases. Clear and convincing evidence is the intermediary standard. Evidence is considered to be clear and convincing if it is substantially more likely than not to be true, and is the evidentiary standard used in civil and criminal trials alike (Clear and Convincing Evidence, n.d.). The lowest standard, and therefore the standard easiest to satisfy, is preponderance of the evidence. The standard of preponderance requires that a particular position has more evidence in its favor than not, 828404D PSXXX10.

Intellectual, Developmental, and Physical Disabilities in U.S. Legal Settings: A Scoping Review

“…However, a small number of states impose a higher standard of proof, such as Arizona, which requires it be proven by clear and convincing evidence (Hollingsworth, 2007), and Georgia, which uses beyond a reasonable doubt (Hurley, 2022). Authors raised concerns about this higher standard increasing the likelihood that someone with an intellectual disability is executed because they cannot meet the standard of proof (O'Grady, 2014;Ricciardelli and Ayres, 2016;Ricciardelli and Jaskyte, 2019).…”