Editorial dissent

When the Supreme Court voted 6-3 last week to bar the execution of the mentally handicapped, it was a backward step for a conservative court that has long protected capital punishment. Citing the eighth amendment, the high court decided that the execution of the mentally handicapped would be "cruel and unusual punishment." While such executions may be cruel, by making this decision, the court is ignoring the 14th amendment -- equal protection under the law.\nDaryl Renard Atkins, the mentally retarded man whose case was brought before the Supreme Court, reportedly had an IQ of 59 and was unable to function or live on his own. But this is where the real problem with disallowing the execution of mentally retarded individuals comes in -- determining who is really mentally retarded and who is just stupid. According the Associated Press, an individual with an IQ of 70 or below is considered retarded. A man with an IQ of 71 will be executed. A man with an IQ of 69 will not. Inmates are being invited to act mentally retarded. After all, actor Sean Penn was convincingly mentally retarded in his recent movie "I Am Sam." Why couldn't an inmate do the same?\nThe question of capital punishment for mentally retarded individuals really comes down to the juries of America. If a jury is willing to convict a man with an IQ of 59 of premeditated murder, than why does the Supreme Court think otherwise? If these individuals do not understand the consequences of their actions, then maybe juries shouldn't be convicting them.\nAnd if all men are truly created equal, as Thomas Jefferson said, then all men deserve equal protection -- as the 14th amendment says. The execution of a mentally retarded individual is not any more cruel or unusual than the execution of a mentally capable person. It's the same loss -- a life.