Nevada lawmakers Wednesday discussed proposals to ban executions of mentally retarded criminals, with debate focusing on one key issue -- defining the mental condition.
AB15 uses an IQ of 70 or lower in trying to determine whether a defendant in a capital case is mentally retarded. Only 2.4 percent of the people who take IQ tests score 70 or below.
Other factors include evidence of significantly substandard mental capacity before age 18. Also taken into account is adaptive behavior, or how well someone comprehends and functions in society.
Because of the three-pronged approach to diagnosis, no set IQ test score determines the condition.
Larry Williams, a professor at University of Nevada, Reno, told members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee that because the condition isn't based on a simple number, state law should rely on the diagnosis of an experienced psychologist.
"What you're trying to do is the equivalent of making a decision based on a technical measure rather than a professional diagnosis giving that measure with other information," Williams said. "You should hang your hat on the diagnosis."
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said she recognized placing an IQ threshold would be helpful for legislators, but added she wasn't stuck on any number and simply wanted the best definition available for her bill.
Leslie also sponsored a similar measure in 2001. It passed the Assembly, but failed to get a hearing in the Senate.
An interim subcommittee that studied the state's death penalty unanimously voted to recommend banning the execution of mentally retarded people. Less than a week later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such executions unconstitutional.
AB15 would allow defendants charged with first-degree murder to file a motion that they're mentally retarded. Defense attorneys would then present evidence of retardation to a judge, who would decide what evidence is pertinent.
If defendants were found to be mentally retarded by a judge, they'd be excluded from death penalty eligibility and, if convicted, face a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The committee also discussed another death penalty reform -- revising state law to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the use of three-judge panels in sentencing people to death.
Under current state law, if a defendant pleads guilty or a jury can't decide on a sentence in a potential capital case, the Nevada Supreme Court establishes a three-judge panel to decide the sentence.
AB13 would eliminate the three-judge panels and require trial judges to impose a no-parole life term if a jury is hung during a capital case.
The bill also would establish procedures for courts to collect data on defendants, victims and attorneys in murder cases. Those courts would have to provide the data to the Nevada Supreme Court, which would provide a biennial report on murder trials.
The hope is the reports would reveal any flaws or biases within the state's judiciary system so state lawmakers could then attempt to rectify them.
ON THE WEB
www.aamr.org
