The following letter was sent to the chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee's on April 9, 2001

Friends Committee on Legislation of California
1225 8th St. Suite 220,
Sacramento, CA 95814-4809
916) 443-3734

April 9, 2001
Execution of Mentally Retarded

Carl Washington, Chair
Assembly Public Safety Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB 1512 (Aroner) Support

Dear Assembly Member Washington:

The Friends Committee on Legislation supports Assembly Bill 1512, which would prevent the state from executing people who are mentally retarded. We think the existing law is unable to assure justice to citizens who are at a disadvantage in the highly competitive judicial system. By removing this class of cases from the category of death-eligible homicides, California can reduce the cost of prosecutions, and focus energy on activity that increases public safety.

Since 1989, the American Bar Association has opposed the execution of mentally retarded persons, and the question of the constitutionality of such executions is now before the United States Supreme Court. There are numerous reasons why mentally retarded people may have unusual difficulty coping with criminal investigations where they may be suspected of homicide. At various stages in the proceedings against them, they may face important decisions about whether to waive their right to be searched or to refrain from answering police questions. In determining whether the waiver was voluntary, made with full awareness of the nature of the right being waived, and knowing the consequences of the decision to waive it, courts frequently disregard the nature of the disability and its impact on such crucial decisions.

Many people with mental retardation may relinquish critical rights because they lack the mental capacity to understand what it means to have a "right," and what it means to waive it. They may also confess to actions they did not take, and they may lack the ability to cooperate with their lawyers. All the time, they may present a carefully cultivated facade of competence that serves them well in ordinary social situations, but that undermines their ability to deal with the legal system.

For the foregoing reasons, we urge support for AB 1512.

Yours very truly,

STEVE BIRDLEBOUGH

cc: Dion Aroner, member of the Assembly

Background on AB 1512 (Aroner) - May 29, 2001
EXECUTION OF THE MENTALLY RETARDED

AB 1512 (Dion Aroner, D., Berkeley) prohibits execution of any mentally retarded person.

The Problem: People who suffer mental retardation often "confess" to things they did not do. Many can be manipulated by cohorts and police. They may not fully comprehend the gravity of what they have done wrong and lack the ability to focus on their own defense in court, especially when subjected to cross-examination. Their understanding of death can be quite limited.

Background Experts estimate that more than 200 mentally retarded (often defined as having I.Q. scores of less than 70) are currently on death rows in the United States.

Legislatures in Arizona, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, and Missouri passed bills this year to forbid execution of the mentally retarded. As of June 18, the Arizona and Florida measures have been enacted; the Governor of Texas has vetoed its bill, and the remaining bills await signature (or veto) by their respective governors. Death Penalty jurisdictions that have already enacted such laws include: AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, MD, NE, NM, NY*, SD, TN, WA, and U.S. (*except for murder by a prisoner). Although it has agreed to revisit the issue in the Fall, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the execution of persons with mental retardation is not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

California state law provides that the penalty for a defendant, who is found guilty of murder in the first degree, where special circumstances exist, is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life. In determining if the death penalty should be imposed, the jury is instructed to take into account whether the defendant had the capability to understand the law and his/her culpability. Because this measure affects a law established by a ballot initiative, if passed and signed by the governor, it would be submitted to the voters for approval.

FCL holds that no one, including the State, has the right to take human life. Particularly in the case of people who are mentally retarded, the death penalty cannot be said to deter or prevent crime; it is unfairly applied, judicial mistakes are more likely, and it violates international standards of justice.

Talking Points:

•Mental retardation cannot be faked, and the condition is routinely identified during a child's school years. This bill would reduce the need for expensive expert testimony and jury deliberation in most capital cases where the accused is mentally retarded.

• Surveys consistently show that more than 70% of American people-—including many who support the death penalty believe it is wrong to subject those with mental retardation to the ultimate state- sanctioned punishment.

• People with mental retardation present a carefully cultivated facade of competence that serves them well in ordinary social situations, but undermines their ability to deal with the legal system. They cannot make informed decisions whether to consent to searches, or whether to answer police questions. Many relinquish critical rights simply because they cannot understand what it means to have a "right" or what it means to waive a right.

• In 1999 and 2000, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions urging nations with the death penalty not to impose it "on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder," a term that includes both the mentally ill and people with mental retardation.

For further information:

• Death Penalty Information Center
• Human Rights Watch.