In the contentious case of Hamm v. Smith, the Supreme Court is faced with the complex issue of addressing intellectual disabilities within the framework of capital punishment. The crux of the matter is whether Joseph Clifton Smith, sentenced to death over 25 years ago, has an intellectual disability, and thus should be exempt from execution under the precedent set by Atkins v. Virginia.
At its core, the debate centers around the admissibility and interpretation of Smith’s IQ scores. Historically, an IQ of 70 or below is typically indicative of a significant intellectual disability. Smith’s scores, however, have ranged from 72 to 78 across various tests. Despite this, the district court considered Smith’s adaptive behavior alongside his IQ scores to conclude that he met the necessary criteria for intellectual disability, a decision ultimately upheld by the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
What makes Hamm v. Smith particularly significant is Alabama’s broader challenge to the Atkins precedent and the “evolving standards of decency” doctrine that underpins it. Both Alabama and 19 other states through an amicus brief have argued for a reinterpretation of the Eighth Amendment based on “fixed and objective” constitutional meanings, rather than contemporary societal values.
The ripple effect of the court’s handling of Hamm reaches into the very essence of contemporary Eighth Amendment application. While Atkins has long provided a wider berth for assessing capital punishment’s applicability, allowing external views including expert and global opinions, a shift back towards originalist interpretations might well prompt a reevaluation of capital punishment as a whole.
This trend is further emphasized by President Trump’s executive order, challenging Supreme Court precedents that constrain capital punishment. The Supreme Court proceedings have thus remained engaged with this debate, heavily influenced by the ongoing shift in judicial philosophy towards originalism.
This case, therefore, isn’t just about Smith’s fate. It is an emblematic confrontation of constitutional interpretative methods with real-world implications. The future of capital punishment as a whole hangs in the balance, as the court grapples with its role in defining the principles underlying America’s punitive landscape.
For further insights, visit SCOTUSblog for an in-depth analysis.