[Nfbkabs] FW: Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Sat Mar 17 23:00:39 CST 2007
Mr. Impirato is absolutely correct. We cannot on the one hand demand
equal treatment before the law and then on the other hand protest when
we receive it.
Mike Freeman, President
NFB of Washington
----- Original Message -----
From: Shannon Caldwell
To: nfbk at yahoogroups.com ; nfbkl at yahoogroups.com ; nfbkabs at nfbnet.org
; hklein at uky.edu ; kadb at yahoogroups.com ; janisk.friend at ky.gov ;
alstrom-syndrome-international at googlegroups.com ;
sarahf.richardson at ky.gov ; crystalw77 at juno.com
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: [Nfbkabs] FW: Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
FYI
For your thoughts What do you think?
Shannon Caldwell
-----Original Message-----
From: Paula Caldwell [mailto:prc at mis.net]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:10 PM
To: sjgc at mis.net
Subject: FW: Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-justice at jfanow.org [mailto:owner-justice at jfanow.org] On
Behalf
Of Justice For All Moderator
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:11 PM
To: justice at jfanow.org
Subject: Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
Dear Readers,
In February, AAPD joined the National Public Radio (NPR)'s new
online blog and discussion forum called Talking Justice and
continues to contribute new content that is featured on the 13th
of every month. Last month's post, "Making the World Safe for
Disability," covered several current events which stood as
reminders of the need for a renewed commitment to the basic human
rights of people with disabilities. This month's post, featured
today, is entitled "Disability and the Death Penalty" and speaks
to the effect that Supreme Court death penalty decisions stand to
have on society's perceptions of people with disabilities.
Both posts can be viewed (and your comments accepted) at:
http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day13/default.aspx.
The new post, "Disability and the Death Penalty," appears below.
________________________________________________________________
Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
By Andrew J. Imparato
Last Friday, ABC World News Tonight with Charles Gibson covered
the South Dakota murder trial of Daphne Wright, a deaf woman whose
attorney is arguing that she should not be subject to the death
penalty because of difficulties she will experience in
understanding the trial and communicating with jurors in the
sentencing phase. The Wright case raises the question, as the ABC
website put it, "Should the Deaf get Death?"
In the 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court
held that executing a person with an intellectual disability
violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's
prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." In overturning a
1989 ruling that had upheld the constitutionality of the death
penalty for defendants with intellectual disabilities, the Court
noted that evolving standards of decency had led them to question
whether executing people with intellectual disabilities would
serve the purposes of deterrence or retribution for criminal
behavior. The Court also questioned the capacity of defendants
with intellectual disabilities to get a fair trial or to provide
adequate assistance to their counsel.
This term, the Court is considering whether to extend the holding
of Atkins and other cases to prohibit executions of some convicted
criminals with psychiatric disabilities. In the case of Panetti v.
Quarterman, the Supreme Court is considering the question: "Does
the Eighth Amendment permit the execution of a death row inmate
who has a factual awareness of the reason for his execution but
who, because of a severe mental illness, has a delusional belief
as to why the State is executing him, and thus does not appreciate
that his execution is intended to seek retribution for his capital
crime?"
Although there are many good reasons to take the position that the
death penalty should be ruled unconstitutional across the board,
the recent trend of identifying classes of disabled defendants for
whom the practice should be considered unconstitutional is
troubling. When we make arguments that people with mental or
sensory disabilities should not be subjected to the death penalty
because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions
or they are inherently incapable of making an effective defense,
we reinforce society's tendency to underestimate the capacity of
people with disabilities to make choices for themselves and live
with the consequences of those choices.
Artificially low expectations can make it more difficult for
disabled individuals to obtain employment, obtain custody of a
child in the wake of a divorce, adopt a child, and lead a life
characterized by self determination, equal opportunity, and some
degree of freedom. Historically, governments have tried to limit
the ability of people with a variety of disabilities to marry,
have children, own property, vote, drive a car, and engage in
other life activities that many people take for granted. Thanks to
laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, these kinds of
discriminatory legal prohibitions are less common. Nonetheless,
unnecessarily negative and paternalistic attitudes about people
with disabilities are still alive and well.
To be sure, there are serious problems with how our justice system
fails to accommodate the needs of criminal defendants with
disabilities. In the 2004 case of Tennessee v. Lane, a criminal
defendant in a wheelchair had to fight all the way to the Supreme
Court to force the State of Tennessee to acknowledge its
obligation to hold its proceedings in an accessible courtroom. In
the context of deaf and hard of hearing defendants, many
jurisdictions fail to provide qualified sign language
interpreters, real time captioning, and other accommodations that
would ensure effective communication for the defendant at every
stage in the criminal justice system. Moreover, these failures can
and should be taken into account in determining whether the
defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial has been
violated.
However, when defense lawyers argue that deaf people should be
categorically exempted from the death penalty, I am concerned that
they are exploiting unrealistically low expectations about deaf
people, and their arguments can set back the cause of disability
rights.
Source: Andrew J. Imparato, AAPD
________________________________________________________________
For more news issues, see:
http://www.aapd.com/docs/news.php
# # #
MODERATOR, Anne Sommers, JUSTICE FOR ALL -- A Service of the
American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). To
contact Anne, please email her at JFAmoderator at aol.com. To
respond to a JFA alert or to submit an article, please see
http://www.aapd.com/JFA/JFAcontent.html.
DISCLAIMER: The JFA Listserv is designed to share information
of interest to people with disabilities and promote dialogue
in the disability community. Information circulated does not
necessarily express the views of AAPD. The JFA Listserv is
non-partisan.
JFA ARCHIVES: All JFA postings from 1995 to present are
available at: http://www.jfanow.org/jfanow/
JOIN AAPD! There's strength in numbers! Be a part of a national
coalition of people with disabilities and join AAPD today at
http://www.aapd.com.
Justice-For-All FREE Subscriptions
To subscribe or unsubscribe,
send an email to majordomo at JFAnow.org
with subscribe justice OR unsubscribe justice
in the body of your email message.
_______________________________________________
Nfbkabs mailing list
Nfbkabs at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbkabs
-------------- next part --------------
Mr. Impirato is absolutely correct. We cannot on the one hand demand equal treatment before the law and then on the other hand protest when we receive it.
Mike Freeman, President
NFB of Washington
----- Original Message -----
From:
mailto:sjgc at mis.net Shannon Caldwell
To:
mailto:nfbk at yahoogroups.com nfbk at yahoogroups.com
; mailto:nfbkl at yahoogroups.com nfbkl at yahoogroups.com
; mailto:nfbkabs at nfbnet.org nfbkabs at nfbnet.org
; mailto:hklein at uky.edu hklein at uky.edu
; mailto:kadb at yahoogroups.com kadb at yahoogroups.com
; mailto:janisk.friend at ky.gov janisk.friend at ky.gov
; mailto:alstrom-syndrome-international at googlegroups.com alstrom-syndrome-international at googlegroups.com
; mailto:sarahf.richardson at ky.gov sarahf.richardson at ky.gov
; mailto:crystalw77 at juno.com crystalw77 at juno.com
Sent:
Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject:
[Nfbkabs] FW: Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
FYI
For your thoughts What do you think?
Shannon Caldwell
-----Original Message-----
From: Paula Caldwell [mailto:prc at mis.net]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:10 PM
To: mailto:sjgc at mis.net sjgc at mis.net
Subject: FW: Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:owner-justice at jfanow.org owner-justice at jfanow.org
[mailto:owner-justice at jfanow.org] On Behalf
Of Justice For All Moderator
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:11 PM
To: mailto:justice at jfanow.org justice at jfanow.org
Subject: Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
Dear Readers,
In February, AAPD joined the National Public Radio (NPR)'s new
online blog and discussion forum called Talking Justice and
continues to contribute new content that is featured on the 13th
of every month. Last month's post, "Making the World Safe for
Disability," covered several current events which stood as
reminders of the need for a renewed commitment to the basic human
rights of people with disabilities. This month's post, featured
today, is entitled "Disability and the Death Penalty" and speaks
to the effect that Supreme Court death penalty decisions stand to
have on society's perceptions of people with disabilities.
Both posts can be viewed (and your comments accepted) at:
http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day13/default.aspx http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day13/default.aspx
.
The new post, "Disability and the Death Penalty," appears below.
________________________________________________________________
Disability Rights and the Death Penalty
By Andrew J. Imparato
Last Friday, ABC World News Tonight with Charles Gibson covered
the South Dakota murder trial of Daphne Wright, a deaf woman whose
attorney is arguing that she should not be subject to the death
penalty because of difficulties she will experience in
understanding the trial and communicating with jurors in the
sentencing phase. The Wright case raises the question, as the ABC
website put it, "Should the Deaf get Death?"
In the 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court
held that executing a person with an intellectual disability
violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's
prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." In overturning a
1989 ruling that had upheld the constitutionality of the death
penalty for defendants with intellectual disabilities, the Court
noted that evolving standards of decency had led them to question
whether executing people with intellectual disabilities would
serve the purposes of deterrence or retribution for criminal
behavior. The Court also questioned the capacity of defendants
with intellectual disabilities to get a fair trial or to provide
adequate assistance to their counsel.
This term, the Court is considering whether to extend the holding
of Atkins and other cases to prohibit executions of some convicted
criminals with psychiatric disabilities. In the case of Panetti v.
Quarterman, the Supreme Court is considering the question: "Does
the Eighth Amendment permit the execution of a death row inmate
who has a factual awareness of the reason for his execution but
who, because of a severe mental illness, has a delusional belief
as to why the State is executing him, and thus does not appreciate
that his execution is intended to seek retribution for his capital
crime?"
Although there are many good reasons to take the position that the
death penalty should be ruled unconstitutional across the board,
the recent trend of identifying classes of disabled defendants for
whom the practice should be considered unconstitutional is
troubling. When we make arguments that people with mental or
sensory disabilities should not be subjected to the death penalty
because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions
or they are inherently incapable of making an effective defense,
we reinforce society's tendency to underestimate the capacity of
people with disabilities to make choices for themselves and live
with the consequences of those choices.
Artificially low expectations can make it more difficult for
disabled individuals to obtain employment, obtain custody of a
child in the wake of a divorce, adopt a child, and lead a life
characterized by self determination, equal opportunity, and some
degree of freedom. Historically, governments have tried to limit
the ability of people with a variety of disabilities to marry,
have children, own property, vote, drive a car, and engage in
other life activities that many people take for granted. Thanks to
laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, these kinds of
discriminatory legal prohibitions are less common. Nonetheless,
unnecessarily negative and paternalistic attitudes about people
with disabilities are still alive and well.
To be sure, there are serious problems with how our justice system
fails to accommodate the needs of criminal defendants with
disabilities. In the 2004 case of Tennessee v. Lane, a criminal
defendant in a wheelchair had to fight all the way to the Supreme
Court to force the State of Tennessee to acknowledge its
obligation to hold its proceedings in an accessible courtroom. In
the context of deaf and hard of hearing defendants, many
jurisdictions fail to provide qualified sign language
interpreters, real time captioning, and other accommodations that
would ensure effective communication for the defendant at every
stage in the criminal justice system. Moreover, these failures can
and should be taken into account in determining whether the
defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial has been
violated.
However, when defense lawyers argue that deaf people should be
categorically exempted from the death penalty, I am concerned that
they are exploiting unrealistically low expectations about deaf
people, and their arguments can set back the cause of disability
rights.
Source: Andrew J. Imparato, AAPD
________________________________________________________________
For more news issues, see:
http://www.aapd.com/docs/news.php http://www.aapd.com/docs/news.php
# # #
MODERATOR, Anne Sommers, JUSTICE FOR ALL -- A Service of the
American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). To
contact Anne, please email her at mailto:JFAmoderator at aol.com JFAmoderator at aol.com
. To
respond to a JFA alert or to submit an article, please see
http://www.aapd.com/JFA/JFAcontent.html http://www.aapd.com/JFA/JFAcontent.html
.
DISCLAIMER: The JFA Listserv is designed to share information
of interest to people with disabilities and promote dialogue
in the disability community. Information circulated does not
necessarily express the views of AAPD. The JFA Listserv is
non-partisan.
JFA ARCHIVES: All JFA postings from 1995 to present are
available at: http://www.jfanow.org/jfanow/ http://www.jfanow.org/jfanow/
JOIN AAPD! There's strength in numbers! Be a part of a national
coalition of people with disabilities and join AAPD today at
http://www.aapd.com http://www.aapd.com
.
Justice-For-All FREE Subscriptions
To subscribe or unsubscribe,
send an email to mailto:majordomo at JFAnow.org majordomo at JFAnow.org
with subscribe justice OR unsubscribe justice
in the body of your email message.
_______________________________________________
Nfbkabs mailing list
mailto:Nfbkabs at nfbnet.org Nfbkabs at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbkabs http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbkabs
More information about the Nfbkabs
mailing list