Making Executions More Costly and Less Common
The U.S. Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom says that executing a person of reduced mental capacity is cruel and unusual punishment. On Monday, it took up the question of whether a convicted defendant should get a separate hearing, apart from the death penalty determination, to ascertain what the court still calls mental retardation. Under the surface, however, the case is really about something else: As the Supreme Court chips away at the death penalty, should it multiply procedural hurdles to make it harder and harder to administer?
To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.
If you believe that you may have received this message in error please let us know.