The United States Supreme Court is set to rule on Hamm v Smith, an Alabama death penalty case that could significantly increase the number of executions of people with intellectual disabilities. The case centers on Joseph Smith, a death row inmate whose five IQ scores—72, 74, 74, 75, and 78—all fall near the bottom fifth percentile of the population. Based on these scores and assessments of his adaptive behaviors, a federal court determined that Smith is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for execution under the 2002 Atkins ruling, which prohibits executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Alabama's Controversial Position
Alabama disagrees with that decision, arguing that any IQ score above 70 should disqualify a defendant from an intellectual disability claim. This contradicts clinical standards, which define intellectual disability as a holistic diagnosis requiring consideration of multiple factors, not just a single IQ score. If the Supreme Court sides with Alabama, it could create a dangerous precedent: states could ignore comprehensive clinical assessments and rely on a rigid IQ cutoff.
Flawed Reasoning and Precedent
Alabama's position is not new. Since Atkins, some states have sought to circumvent the ban on executing intellectually disabled individuals. The Supreme Court previously rejected Florida's attempt to impose a strict IQ cutoff of 70 and Texas's reliance on fictional characters like Lennie from Of Mice and Men rather than clinical diagnostics. In both cases, the Court affirmed that states must adhere to current clinical standards.
However, with a conservative majority, the Court may now reverse course. If it agrees with Alabama, the protections for intellectually disabled defendants could collapse. States could adopt similar non-clinical criteria, leading to more executions of vulnerable individuals who, by professional standards, are intellectually disabled.
Overrepresentation on Death Row
People with intellectual disabilities are overrepresented on death row. They are more likely to falsely confess and less able to assist their legal teams. Despite these vulnerabilities, executions continue. For example, Texas plans to execute Edward Busby Jr. on May 14, even though both defense and prosecution experts agreed he is intellectually disabled. A trial judge overruled the consensus, finding his intellectual functioning not "so subaverage" as to exempt him from the death penalty.
Misunderstanding Intellectual Disability
Busby's case illustrates a broader misunderstanding of intellectual disability. Judges, attorneys, and juries often treat it as easily identifiable, but the reality is complex. Many defendants refuse assessments due to fear or lack of understanding, and race and resources affect who receives supportive interventions. The problem is not applying clinical standards in court, but reconciling horrific crimes with the limitations of those who commit them.
The Core Issue: Punitive Urge vs. Proportionality
Ultimately, Hamm v Smith is about the desire for retribution. Some states want to impose the harshest punishment without considering individual culpability. Accepting proportional punishment does not excuse harm, but executing people like Smith and Busby—who have always needed support but slip through cracks—fails the vulnerable. If the Supreme Court sides with Alabama, it will further erode protections for intellectually disabled individuals and increase the number of unconstitutional executions.
