Final answer:
The Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities is unconstitutional, reflects the legal recognition that mental illness can impair the ability to distinguish right from wrong. States must define intellectual disability, impacting capital punishment decisions. This case represents a significant shift towards constitutional protection and humane treatment for those with mental impairments in the justice system.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding the Court's Ruling on Mental Illness and Capital Punishment
In the landmark case Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments' extends to the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities. This decision underscores the principle that certain individuals, due to mental illness, may be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, and therefore should not be held to the same standard of criminal responsibility as others. In the Atkins case, the content loaded with complex legal, ethical, and psychological considerations led the court to acknowledge the evolving standards of decency and the role of psychological assessment in establishing an individual's mental state and capabilities. Moreover, subsequent cases such as Enmund v. Florida and Ford v. Wainwright further solidified the stance that capital punishment must be applied in a manner that is consistent with constitutional protections and humane principles. As a result of these rulings, states are responsible for setting their own definitions of intellectual disability. The benchmark set by the Atkins case transformed the legal landscape, acknowledging that individuals who cannot fully comprehend their actions due to mental impairments should not be sentenced to death. This marked a substantial shift in the court's approach to capital punishment and people with intellectual disabilities.