Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA.
Am Psychol. 2010 Nov;65(8):743-8. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.65.8.743.
This article deals with a case that recently came before the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues involved whether attorneys provided effective assistance to a person convicted of murder when no mitigating evidence was presented (either strategically or by neglect) to the jury concerning the intellectual disabilities of their client during the death penalty phase of the trial. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the death penalty for intellectually disabled individuals (mentally retarded) constituted cruel and unusual punishment. In this case the attorneys made a strategic decision not to present possibly mitigating evidence for the death penalty phase. The Supreme Court considered whether the appeals court abdicated its judicial review responsibilities. The results of psychological evaluations are presented, and the decisions of the Supreme Court are discussed.
本文探讨了一个最近提交至美国最高法院的案例。所涉问题是,在审判的死刑阶段,律师是否向陪审团提供了有关其当事人智力残疾的减轻证据(无论是出于策略考虑还是疏忽),从而为被判谋杀罪的人提供了有效的协助。最高法院此前曾裁定,对智力残疾者(弱智)判处死刑构成残忍和异常的惩罚。在这种情况下,律师们做出了不提出可能的减轻死刑证据的策略决定。最高法院审议了上诉法院是否放弃了其司法审查职责。本文呈现了心理评估的结果,并讨论了最高法院的裁决。