The edi­tors of the Birmingham News in Alabama recenl­ty called upon a tri­al court to over­rule a jury’s 10 – 2 rec­om­men­da­tion for death in the case of Esaw Jackson because of his men­tal dis­abil­i­ties. While not­ing that in many states Jackson would not even be eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty fol­low­ing a non-unan­i­mous vote, the News added that an IQ test, con­duct­ed by a state expert on Jackson, showed an IQ of 56, well below the lev­el that gen­er­al­ly indi­cates an intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held that those with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties (men­tal retar­da­tion), can­not be sen­tenced to death. The edi­tors point­ed out, There are a num­ber of rea­sons why intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties are a rea­son for lenien­cy: It stands to rea­son that some­one with­out ade­quate intel­lec­tu­al capac­i­ty should not bear full legal respon­si­bil­i­ty for their actions. A strong case also can be made that peo­ple with dimin­ished men­tal capa­bil­i­ties are at a dis­ad­van­tage when it comes to defend­ing them­selves. Some intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled defen­dants, for instance, have con­fessed to crimes they did­n’t com­mit.” The edi­to­r­i­al con­clud­ed, If Jackson is intel­lec­tu­al­ly inca­pable of bear­ing full respon­si­bil­i­ty for his actions, he not only should not be put to death — he can­not be under the law. Staging not just one but two cap­i­tal tri­als was a colos­sal waste of time and mon­ey. [The judge] can avoid throw­ing more mon­ey down the drain by sim­ply sen­tenc­ing Jackson to life in prison with no chance for parole.”

(“OUR VIEW: This is one case where a judge should over­rule a jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion regard­ing a death sen­tence,” Birmingham News, edi­to­r­i­al, June 13, 2012). See Intellectual Disability. Read more Editorials. Listen to DPIC’s pod­cast on Mental Illness.

Citation Guide