•  
  •  
 

Georgia Criminal Law Review

Document Type

Notes

Abstract

Georgia sentences individuals with intellectual disability (“ID”) to death at an alarming rate. As a result, Georgia has likely executed individuals with ID in violation of the United States Constitution already. These unjust executions are a result of the impossibly high “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof that capital defendants in only Georgia must meet to prove they are intellectually disabled. One large hurdle for defendants attempting to meet this standard is the unreliability of IQ testing. IQ testing, a soft science, provides inconsistent results due to ever-changing variables in the testing process. Additionally, the generally accepted threshold IQ score of 70 used to distinguish an individual with ID from one without is arbitrary.6 Because there are other, more reliable methods for determining whether an individual has ID,7 IQ testing should be eliminated from the equation as a whole when weighing whether a capitally-charged defendant has met their burden to prove they have ID. Since the removal of IQ testing will likely be a gradual process, the burden of proof that a capitally-charged defendant must meet to prove ID in Georgia should be reduced from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a “preponderance of the evidence.” Part A of the background section of this note will discuss U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the overlap between ID and the death penalty. Part B of the background section will discuss the adoption of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for determining ID in Georgia. and case law demonstrating instances where defendants with clear signs of ID were nonetheless executed. Part C of the background section will briefly discuss the history of IQ testing, the unreliable aspects of IQ testing, and how the unreliability of IQ testing perpetuates a defendant’s struggle to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof required to prove ID. Under the analysis section of this note, more reliable methods that do not utilize IQ testing will be proposed to guide factfinders in determining whether a defendant has ID. Furthermore, this section will contain a proposition to reduce the burden of proof that a defendant must meet from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “preponderance of the evidence”. This reduction will be posed as an interim solution while courts slowly adjust to testing for ID without using IQ scores. The analysis section will end by discussing potential issues with this note’s solutions to those issues. Finally, the note will conclude by putting the issue of unreliability in death penalty cases into perspective. Specifically, the fact that there has only been one case where a defendant was found guilty but intellectually disabled since Georgia adopted this standard, a number far lower than any other state that still enforces the death penalty, will be highlighted.

Download

Share

COinS