of ônarrowing,ö which suggests that classes of defendants for which there is a particularly high degree of possibility for mistake about the question of ôdesertö or moral culpability should be exempted. Streiker and Streiker (1998) take the position that the ABA opposition to the execution of the mentally retarded represents an informed stance and that the federal courtsÆ refusal to render a death sentence in the cases of mentally retarded defendants supports a policy that should be adopted by all of the states.
It is this particular problem that will be explored herein. The death penalty, as Michael Ross (1999, p. 43) states, ôis an absolute punishmentö that ôshould be imposed on persons whose sense of responsibility and judgment is such that they fully appreciate the seriousness of what they were doing.ö The problem of whether or not to execute the mentally retarded has emerged in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans (i.e., 75 percent) favor capital punishment, but when specific examples of defendants are identified, support for the use of this sanction tends to decline (Whitehead, 1998).
Wilson (2001) argues that the execution of the mentally retarded is a contentious issue in part because of the inherent difficulty in determining the relationship between retardation and competence. Mental retardation is generally understood as present in individuals who score less than 70 points on a standardized IQ test. IQ tests, however, may not necessarily capture competence and some people with an IQ below 70 may well be competent to stand trial in the sense that they know certain actions are wrong, can communicate to their attorneys all of the relevant facts, and testify with credibility.
Further, Wilson (2001) claims that there are people with IQs above 70 who may not be competent. A reasonably bright person suffering from a strong personality disorder may be incoherent or disruptive and...