Supreme Court Rejects Execution of Mentally Retarded Killer

The Supreme Court blocked the execution of Panetti V. Quaterman, a mentally retarded killer in Texas on the grounds that the lower court failed to take into consideration the mounting psychiatric evidence supported by the Eighth Amendment of the constitution.

The Scott Louis Panetti lawyer claimed that his client suffered mental health problem and that was the reason behind the murder.

The court that in the recent cases are always divided by four conservative judges, one swing judge and four liberal judges, made their decision known today with ruling favoring the convicted murderer by 5-4.

According to an Associated Press reporter, Justice Kennedy who wrote the larger part of the opinion, wrote, "This argument, we hold, should have been considered" when the murderer was slated for execution. He pointed out the Texas court should have granted Panetti the chance to provide mental evidence during the trial. Supporters of Kennedy's argument were Justice John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

Opponent of the ruling are Justice Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas wrote their supporting view on the issue. According to the AP report, he wrote, " The court bends over backwards to allow Panetti" to formulate a new claim, irrespective of no mounting evidence that his mental situation has deteriorated than he was during the period of the murder. Thomas classified the ruling as "a half-baked holding that leaves the details of the insanity standard" for the state court to perform its functions.

Panetti was convicted in the state of Texas for shooting his in-laws to death in front of his wife and infant daughter. Panetti could be the one of the luckiest person as legal scholars pointed out that it will be difficult for others to use this defense in subsequent cases of murder.

The ruling in this case poises a new debate on execution of mentally retarded people. Many argued that it was not fair that the state court did not judiciously allow an expert to examine the mental state of the defendant before the court issued its execution verdict.