Atkins v. Virginia: Implications and Recommendations for Forensic Practice

Abstract

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court held in the landmark case of Atkins v. Virginia (2002) that the execution of individuals who have mental retardation is unconstitutional. Following the Atkins holding, courts in death penalty jurisdictions have relied heavily upon mental health professionals in making a determination of whether or not capital offenders have mental retardation. The determination of mental retardation in death penalty cases, however, presents complex challenges for both courts and mental health professionals. In addition, there is variability in how death penalty states define mental retardation and in the assessment methods used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental retardation in such cases. The purpose of this article is to (a) describe how statutes in death penalty jurisdictions have operationalized the various clinical definitions of mental retardation, (b) discuss issues confronting examiners in assessing and diagnosing mental retardation in Atkins cases, and (c) provide recommendations for forensic practice.

Looking to science rather than convention in adjusting IQ scores when death is at issue.

“…Other scholars have also advocated adjustment of individual test scores to account for the Flynn effect in Atkins cases (see Flynn, 2006Flynn, , 2009Greenspan, 2006Greenspan, , 2007Macvaugh & Cunningham, 2009;Scullin, 2006). Young et al (2007) left open the option of Flynn effect correction of IQ scores in capital mental retardation evaluations.…”

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

“…In sum, the Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) argued that the intellectually disabled deserve special protection in the criminal justice system (see also Abeles, 2010;Macvaugh & Gilbert, 2009;Romano, 2003). How, though, should courts decide who should receive this special protection?…”

Validity, interrater reliability, and measures of adaptive behavior: Concerns regarding the probative versus prejudicial value.

“…Assessing typical performance across multiple settings is necessary because reliance on an individual's functioning in one setting may provide an inaccurate portrayal of an individual's ability to function on a day-to-day basis (AAIDD, 2010;Greenspan & Switzky, 2006;Harrison & Oakland, 2015;Macvaugh & Cunningham, 2009;Sparrow et al, 2005;Widaman & Siperstein, 2009). For children and youth, information regarding functional ability within both the home environment and the community can almost always be obtained.…”

“…In addition to selecting appropriate raters across multiple domains, it is standard practice to obtain data from multiple raters (AAIDD, 2010). The underlying rationale is that the assessment will be more accurate when evaluating behavior across informants and across domains (see for example AAIDD, 2010; Harrison & Oakland, 2015;Macvaugh & Cunningham, 2009;Widaman & Siperstein, 2009). As noted by Harrison and Oakland (2003), "the use of multiple respondents can provide information about the degree of consistency of an individual's adaptive skills across settings, in response to different environmental demands, and from the unique perspectives of different respondents" (Harrison & Oakland, 2003, p. 19).…”