|
Abstract
| Argument: |
Wednesday, January 11, 1989
|
| Decision: |
Monday, June 26, 1989 |
| Issues: |
Criminal Procedure, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Death Penalty |
| Categories: |
capital punishment, criminal, cruel and unusual punishment, eighth amendment, insanity, mental retardation |
| Tags: |
Rehnquist: Rights of the Accused, Rehnquist on iTunes U |
|
Advocates
|
Facts of the Case
Penry, a retarded man with the mental age of barely seven years, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. During the trial's proceedings, the jury was not instructed that it could consider the mitigating circumstances of Penry's mental retardation in imposing its sentence.
Question
Was Penry's sentence cruel and unusual punishment?
Conclusion
The Court partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court's decision. Justice O'Connor argued that the jury was improperly instructed and should have been told that it could have considered Penry's mental deficiencies when imposing its sentence. However, she rejected Penry's blanket claim that generally the Eighth Amendment does not allow death sentences for retarded defendants.