This paper is about Freddie Lee Hall and the review of the case Hall v Florida No. 12-10882 (2014), with reference to Atkins v Virginia. Mr. Hall committed multiple crimes of rape, kidnap, robbery and murder, although with an accomplice in 1978. There was an effort to refute his claims of being intellectually challenged because of the degree of planning needed to conduct such a robbery and also a consideration of the fact that he had an IQ score of 71. Automatically, the fact that he killed two people, one of them a deputy, should have gotten him a death sentence, however, considering Atkins v Virginia (2002), it is stated under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution that persons exhibiting intellectual disability should not be executed for any of their crimes.
The Supreme Court made a ruling that the IQ test used as a definite threshold to determine a person’s intellectual disability is not within the limits of the constitution when it comes to determining if they should face the death penalty. The holding had been that if the state allows for the execution of Mr. Hall, it would be unconstitutional because of the Eighth Amendment’s limitation on cruel punishments on those of are intellectually disabled. Despite all this, it can be argued that there is still a possibility that Mr. Hall can be executed because Florida, despite its rigidity regarding the IQ score, has conformed to all requirements to make its judgment. The IQ test remains one of the most used and reliable methods of assessing a person’s intellectual capacity. Adding more evidence may be argued to be a factor that will increase error in the defendant’s assessment. Furthermore, not considering the adaptive deficits and other presented inequities is justified for the state because disparities and subjective judgments majorly mar them. As such, there is still a chance that Mr. Hall may be executed for his crimes.
In the US, criminal offenses are punished by the law depending on age and the crime committed. Some of the offenses perpetrated by the youths under the age of 18 as per the US law states that they do not qualify a death penalty in a civilized society. Under the legislature, there was a need to revise this amendment as it imposed unusual and brutal punishment to the youth (Dean 2).
The ratification of the law was reviewed to protect the juvenile from a federal sanction punishment. Therefore, the evolution standards of decency for this case mean that the Supreme must articulate limits that the constitutional law decides on the kind of sentence the government should give on offenders. As an illustration, through the evolution of the Court’s point of view, a legal procedure in executing juvenile delinquents was revised and advocated for making the court to decide on methods to use in executing people with intellectual disability.
Evolution standards decency plays a significant role in the society by reflecting on good moral values practiced by the people and the evaluating other solutions on punishing the offenders creating a positive progress of the community (Carter 3). Offenders like Mr. Hall should be who appealed to the court due to his mental intellectual from his childhood upbringing after committing two crimes that lead to the death penalty should be taken to rehabilitation centers for particular conditions. Before ruling a death penalty on people like Ma. Hall, a thorough investigation, and medication should be done to determine his mental retardation (Hall, 2).
In conclusion, a good understanding of constitutional doctrines such as fairness and evolving standards should be applied, and one needs to clearly understand when and where to implement them under the Chief Justice order in making decisions for offenders and giving a punishment that will affect the lives of the juvenile and their families.
Works Cited
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. (2014)
Carter J. Capital Punishment: A Struggle to Satisfy Evolving Standards of Decency - Reviewing The Debate In The United States And Canada. 2011. http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lawjournal/17_2carter.pdf
Dean M.D. State Legislation and the “Evolving Standards Of Decency”: Flaws In The Constitutional Review Of Death Penalty Statutes.2009. https://www.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/state_legislation_and_the_evolv ing_standards_of_decency.pdf
