Individualizing justice after Atkins

On August 6, 2005, newspapers and other media outlets reported that Daryl Atkins had been determined by a Virginia jury not to be retarded and therefore was mentally competent to receive the death penalty. A judge immediately scheduled his execution for December. Atkins, of course, is the convicted murderer whose case three years earlier had led the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, to declare that mentally retarded offenders are constitutionally exempt from the death penalty. While a bitter irony for Atkins, his family, and supporters, the Virginia jury's finding suggests that the practical effects of the Supreme Court's decision are less dramatic than many had anticipated. It shows that mere labels need not be determinative and that judges and juries as well as mental health experts called to assist them in capital cases can continue to work toward an individualized brand of justice.