The Hamm v. Smith case has recently brought to light a disturbing trend in the justice system – the undermining of scientific evidence and decades of case law. At the center of the controversy is the state of Alabama, who is desperately begging the Supreme Court to make it easier to execute people with intellectual disabilities. This bizarre and unsettling turn of events is a cause for concern for all those who believe in fairness and justice for all individuals, regardless of their mental capacity.
The story of this case begins with a man named Vernon Madison, who was sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer in 1985. Over the course of his incarceration, Madison developed severe mental and physical disabilities, including vascular dementia and schizophrenia. Despite this, Alabama has continued to fight for his execution, arguing that his disabilities do not qualify as an “intellectual disability” under the precedent set by the 2002 Supreme Court case Atkins v. Virginia.
However, during the oral arguments in Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama made a shocking and disheartening request to the Supreme Court. They asked the justices to overturn the Atkins decision and give states more discretion in determining who can be executed for their crimes. This would essentially make it easier for individuals with intellectual disabilities to be put to death, going against decades of scientific and legal precedent.
This appeal by Alabama is nothing short of a dangerous attack on the rights of individuals with intellectual disabilities. It not only disregards the clear scientific evidence that has been established in the Atkins case, but it also goes against our moral obligation to protect and support those with disabilities. By asking for a loosening of the restrictions on executing people with intellectual disabilities, Alabama is essentially saying that some lives are worth less than others.
Moreover, if the Supreme Court were to side with Alabama and overturn the Atkins decision, it would have far-reaching consequences in the justice system. It would not only affect those on death row, but it could also open the door for other individuals with disabilities to be unfairly and unjustly punished for their crimes. It would be a huge step back in the progress we have made in ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equally under the law.
This disturbing turn of events is also a reflection of the current political climate where science and facts are being disregarded and undermined. The Atkins decision was based on solid scientific research and understanding of intellectual disabilities, and to dismiss it now would be a blatant disregard for the truth. It would set a dangerous precedent for future cases where scientific evidence may be at odds with the opinions of those in power.
It is also important to note that the vast majority of countries around the world have abolished the death penalty for individuals with intellectual disabilities. This includes all of our peer countries in the Western world, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. It is a matter of great shame and disappointment that the United States, a country that prides itself on the principles of justice and equality, is even considering going against this global trend.
In conclusion, the Hamm v. Smith case and Alabama’s appeal to the Supreme Court highlights a disturbing trend of disregarding scientific evidence and legal precedent in the name of pursuing a flawed and dangerous agenda. It is an attack on the rights of individuals with disabilities and a step backward in our society’s progress towards fairness and justice for all. It is our moral obligation to stand against such injustice and demand that the Supreme Court upholds the precedent set by the Atkins decision. Let us not forget that our society will be judged by how we treat our most vulnerable members, and it is our duty to ensure that they are not treated as disposable and dispensable.
