Post by SoulTrainOz on Jun 13, 2006 1:08:20 GMT -5
Jurors would have to unanimously decide that a defendant convicted of murder was not mentally retarded before they could consider the death penalty under a bill approved Monday by the state House of Representatives.
The bill is intended to bring Pennsylvania law in line with U.S. Supreme Court guidelines established after a landmark 2002 ruling that banned the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The court left it up to the states to define mental retardation and determine who decides if a defendant is retarded.
The House bill passed 169-28 after a debate in which opponents argued that judges should determine whether defendants are retarded before they go to trial rather than having juries do so after they are convicted. The measure now goes to the state Senate for consideration.
Under the bill, sponsored by Rep. Dennis M. O'Brien, R-Philadelphia, if a jury was not unanimous in concluding that a defendant was not retarded, he or she would be sentenced to life in prison.
"Juries have always decided whether a killer can be acquitted by reason of insanity," O'Brien said. "There is no good reason why juries should be stripped of a substantial portion of their power to determine the question of mental retardation in capital murder cases."
Rep. Kathy Manderino, D-Philadelphia, tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to place the responsibility of determining mental retardation with the trial judge in a pretrial proceeding.
"The mental retardation is something that needs to have been demonstrated conclusively during childhood," Manderino said. "That is something that can be taken into account before we go to trial and spend all the time, energy and resources on a capital case jury in an instance where the person is not even eligible to get the death penalty."
However, O'Brien argued that a pretrial process would be "costly and wasteful," bringing up testimony that will be rehashed during a trial.
The House vote comes 6 months after the state Supreme Court set standards by which murder defendants can prove they are mentally retarded and avoid the death penalty. The court, however, also urged the Legislature to adopt its own standards.
The court said in its December 2005 ruling that it would not rely on a "cutoff IQ score" and instead adopted a system that takes into account both "limited intellectual functioning" and "deficiencies in adaptive
skills."
The court ruled in a case involving a defendant's post-conviction appeal, so it did not say how its new rules should apply to new murder cases. Its ruling did not make clear whether a judge or jury should determine retardation, or if that should be done before trial or after conviction.
(source: Associated Press)
The bill is intended to bring Pennsylvania law in line with U.S. Supreme Court guidelines established after a landmark 2002 ruling that banned the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The court left it up to the states to define mental retardation and determine who decides if a defendant is retarded.
The House bill passed 169-28 after a debate in which opponents argued that judges should determine whether defendants are retarded before they go to trial rather than having juries do so after they are convicted. The measure now goes to the state Senate for consideration.
Under the bill, sponsored by Rep. Dennis M. O'Brien, R-Philadelphia, if a jury was not unanimous in concluding that a defendant was not retarded, he or she would be sentenced to life in prison.
"Juries have always decided whether a killer can be acquitted by reason of insanity," O'Brien said. "There is no good reason why juries should be stripped of a substantial portion of their power to determine the question of mental retardation in capital murder cases."
Rep. Kathy Manderino, D-Philadelphia, tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to place the responsibility of determining mental retardation with the trial judge in a pretrial proceeding.
"The mental retardation is something that needs to have been demonstrated conclusively during childhood," Manderino said. "That is something that can be taken into account before we go to trial and spend all the time, energy and resources on a capital case jury in an instance where the person is not even eligible to get the death penalty."
However, O'Brien argued that a pretrial process would be "costly and wasteful," bringing up testimony that will be rehashed during a trial.
The House vote comes 6 months after the state Supreme Court set standards by which murder defendants can prove they are mentally retarded and avoid the death penalty. The court, however, also urged the Legislature to adopt its own standards.
The court said in its December 2005 ruling that it would not rely on a "cutoff IQ score" and instead adopted a system that takes into account both "limited intellectual functioning" and "deficiencies in adaptive
skills."
The court ruled in a case involving a defendant's post-conviction appeal, so it did not say how its new rules should apply to new murder cases. Its ruling did not make clear whether a judge or jury should determine retardation, or if that should be done before trial or after conviction.
(source: Associated Press)