Mother Jonesintellectually disabled, should not be executed
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision dismissing Alabama's appeal in Hamm v. Smith, leaving in place lower-court rulings that Joseph Clinton Smith has an intellectual disability. The unsigned order stated that the earlier grant of certiorari was improvidently granted. Four justices dissented, and the outcome preserves the application of Atkins v. Virginia (2002) to the case.
The decision correctly preserves Atkins protections against executing intellectually disabled individuals and prevents states from using narrow IQ-based criteria.
“Emphasis on protecting vulnerable defendants and rejecting simplistic assessments.”
Conservative
The Court missed an opportunity to clarify standards for multiple IQ scores, leaving expansive procedural barriers in place that delay accountability.
“Focus on state authority, victim interests, and finality in capital cases.”
Libertarian
The outcome limits state power to execute individuals whose cognitive impairments raise doubts about culpability, reinforcing Eighth Amendment safeguards.
“Priority on individual protection against irreversible government action.”
Devil's Advocate
All views accept the disability finding and DIG order at face value without examining whether Alabama's evidence could have shown borderline impairment or questioning incentives for post-conviction claims.
“Highlights procedural retreat after certiorari grant and absence of offense or victim context.”