As anyone could have predicted, defense lawyers have begun working to extend the recent ruling agains execution of the mentally retarded. Last week, lawyers argued, unsuccessfully, that it should extend to 17 year olds. This week, lawyers argued that it should extend to mental illnesses:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/1529216

The problem with these arguments is that a jury considered the same argument during trial and rejected it under the mitigating circumstances issue. Why does the defendant get another bite at the apple?

I understand that we also have a "reverse Atkins" argument going on. Something like this: my guy on death row gets a new punishment hearing because the state didn't prove at trial that he was NOT mentally retarded, and that's what the new law requires.

Huh?

So, applying that logic, do we have to go back and prove that no one on death row is under 17?

More laws [court decisions?]....less justice.

Do you really mean to imply that these arguments for a bigger and better Atkins have a basis in logic? Atkins itself lacks some logic. But its like any set of clothes that are unfamiliar. You have to try them on several ways before you can decide exactly how they were supposed to fit (or look).