"It is excessive and simply unfair to ask a jury, that has been presented a case, to impartially rule on the issue of mental retardation," the senators wrote to Dewhurst.(Houston Chronicle, May 1, 2003) Led by State Senator Rodney Ellis, eleven Texas senators are seeking to force the mental retardation issue in capital murders cases to be addressed in a pre-trial motion rather than as a jury question in the punishment phase of the trial. Why is it "excessive and unfair" to put the question to a jury? Why are jurors in Texas any less qualified to decide the retardation issue than they are to decide a nebulous concept like "future danger?" Any thoughts?

[This message was edited by Admin on 05-06-03 at .]

What would be unfair is to not allow any jury that is deciding the mental retardation issue an opportunity to hear all the facts. Despite what Sen. Ellis and those opposing Rep. Keel's bill may claim, the facts of the crime, and the defendant's criminal history, are directly relevant to a defendant's level of adaptive functioning--the most important prong of the mental retardation diagnostic criteria. Reputable pyschologists will tell you that in order to make a reliable diagnosis of retardation, you have to take a comprehensive look at all facets of a person's life. Kind of makes you wonder if those opposing the Keel bill are really interested in "truth," "justice" or "fairness," or would rather just create another costly obstacle to the death penalty.

If you want to understand what is perhaps the real motivation behind the refusal to bring Rep. Keel's mental retardation bill to a vote in the Senate, you need to read a law review article written by Jordan Steiker, one of the architects of Sen. Ellis' bill:

"Should Abolitionists Support "Reform" of the Death Penalty?"

Steiker testified against the Keel bill but promised that he was not against the death penalty. In the law review article, Steiker calls himself a "committed abolitionist."

So John, if your characterization of his testimony is accurate, sounds like a false statement made under oath during an official proceeding. Of course, I'm sure there was no intent to deceive anybody.

You can listen to the testimony online by going to Legislature Online and clicking to the link that has archives for House Committee testimony. Check the date and time of the hearing and use RealPlayer to listen. It's pretty good stuff.

I took Con Law from this guy in school. Let's just say that he thinks there are very few things states should be allowed to decide for themselves -- imposition of the death penalty being one of them. The idea that he's not against it is nonsense.

I was at the hearing and let's just say that the chairman of the committee, Terry Keel, raked Steiker "over the coals" pretty well concerning his anti-death penalty arguments. John, I think the article you posted written by Steiker says it all. Ironically he characterizes our position, of advocating punishment phase resolution of the issue, as "transparent." To me, the only thing "transparent" here is the unwillingness of Ellis, Steiker, et al, to admit that their advocacy of the various bills supposedly designed to make the capital punishment scheme more "fair," is nothing more than an effort to achieve incrementally what they can't accomplish all at once--the outright abolition of the death penalty.