Executing Mentally Retarded Individuals is Unconstitutional
            
             Every year there are multiple cases brought to court. Most individuals accused of crimes are competent to understand the charges brought upon them and if they are guilty of them or not. There are a few exceptions to this. Certain individuals that are brought to trial are considered incompetent to stand trial based on their mentally capacity. These individuals are considered to be mentally retarded. It is unconstitutional to sentence a mentally retarded individual. In coming to this conclusion one must understand what is considered mentally retarded, view examples of cases in which a mentally retarded person was sentenced to death, and look closely at supreme court cases dealing with the actual constitutionality of the punishment.
             There are many definitions that try to explain what mental retardation is. The American Association on Mental Retardation and the American Psychiatric Association define it as "significantly sub average general intelligence that causes major difficulties in activities of daily living, and has manifested by age eighteen". (The ARC) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1992 adds to this definition by stating that mentally retarded individuals are limited in two or more of the following areas of skill: "caring for oneself, home-living, social skills, community use, and self-direction". (The ARC) Mentally retarded individuals typically generate a score of seventy or below on a standardized IQ test. A score less than seventy on an IQ represents the bottom 2 percent of the general population. A person with an IQ score at the bottom of the population often proves to have problems with learning, especially fundamental things such as "reading, writing, and arithmetic". The ability for a mentally retarded individual to "reason, plan, judge, and discriminate" are diminished in comparison to...