A recent New York Times edi­to­r­i­al encour­aged the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to reduce the sen­tence of death row inmate Warren Hill to life. Hill is fac­ing exe­cu­tion on July 18. The edi­to­r­i­al not­ed that Mr. Hill’s intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties, includ­ing an IQ of 70, led the tri­al judge to find him men­tal­ly retard­ed. Georgia’s Supreme Court, how­ev­er, over­turned the judge’s rul­ing because men­tal retar­da­tion had not been proven ​“beyond a rea­son­able doubt.” The Times not­ed that Georgia ​“is the only state with a statute requir­ing a defen­dant to meet [this] unfair­ly heavy bur­den,” and added, ​“This unjust pro­ce­dur­al require­ment effec­tive­ly denies pro­tec­tion for the men­tal­ly impaired, as required by the Eighth Amendment.” The Times also said that clemen­cy is appro­pri­ate for Hill because some jurors have said they would have sen­tenced him to life with­out parole if giv­en the option, and the vic­tim’s fam­i­ly has said he should not be exe­cut­ed. See the full editorial below.

An Urgent Plea for Mercy

Published: July 6, 2012

In a close­ly divid­ed 4‑to‑3 rul­ing, the State Supreme Court wrong­ly upheld the statute on the grounds that the United States Supreme Court left it to the states to set pro­ce­dures for decid­ing on retar­da­tion. This unjust pro­ce­dur­al require­ment effec­tive­ly denies pro­tec­tion for the men­tal­ly impaired, as required by the Eighth Amendment.

This week, Georgia issued a war­rant to exe­cute Warren Lee Hill Jr., a death-row inmate con­vict­ed of mur­der, who has an I.Q. of 70. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles is the fail-safe in the state’s crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, with a man­date to exer­cise mer­cy when the court sys­tem has failed to come to a just result. That is clear­ly true in this case. The tri­al judge found that Mr. Hill was men­tal­ly retard­ed by apply­ing the fair­er ​“pre­pon­der­ance of the evi­dence” stan­dard in deter­min­ing his mental impairment.

The State Supreme Court, how­ev­er, ruled that Mr. Hill had to prove his men­tal retar­da­tion beyond a rea­son­able doubt. The dis­sent right­ly argued that apply­ing the tougher stan­dard is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al because it impos­es too high a risk that a court’s con­clu­sion will be wrong. The dis­sent relied on the United States Supreme Court hold­ing that it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to require a defen­dant to prove that he is incom­pe­tent to stand tri­al by any stan­dard high­er than a pre­pon­der­ance of the evidence.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit avoid­ed cor­rect­ing the state court’s stark con­sti­tu­tion­al error, claim­ing that a fed­er­al statute on habeas cor­pus review impos­es severe lim­its so that Mr. Hill had to show ​“that no fair-mind­ed jurist” could agree with the Georgia court. The United States Supreme Court denied a review of Mr. Hill’s case in June. He is sched­uled for exe­cu­tion this month.

Jurors from this case said they would have sen­tenced Mr. Hill to life with­out parole if they had had the option. The fam­i­ly of the vic­tim has said Mr. Hill should not be exe­cut­ed. The par­don board has the dis­cre­tion and the duty to com­mute his sen­tence to life with­out parole. The legal and fac­tu­al record strong­ly com­pels that just decision.

(“An Urgent Plea for Mercy,” New York Times, July 6, 2012, edi­to­r­i­al.) See Editorials and Intellectual Disability. For more infor­ma­tion, see Amnesty International’s page.