The Comparison Between Daryl Atkins And William Jones

On August 16, 1996, Daryl Atkins and William Jones, armed with a semiautomatic handgun, abducted Airman Eric Nesbitt from a nearby convenience store. The pair robbed Nesbitt of money on his person and then drove him in his truck to an automated teller machine where the ATM’s camera recorded them forcing Nesbitt to withdraw additional cash. Atkins and Jones then took Nesbitt to an isolated location where he was shot eight times and killed. Each confirmed most of the details in the other’s account of the incident, with the exception that each man claimed that the other had pulled the trigger. Atkins' version of the events contained many inconsistencies and the jury decided that Jones's version of events was more coherent and credible, establishing

The defense again relied upon the conclusion of Dr. Evan Nelson that Atkins was “mildly mentally retarded” and asserted that because he was “mentally retarded,” he could not be sentenced to death. The State’s witness, Dr. Stanton Samenow, stated that Atkins possessed “at least average intelligence.” The State also introduced victim impact evidence and proved two aggravating circumstances: future dangerousness and “vileness of the offense.” The future dangerousness was based on Atkins’ prior felony convictions as well as the testimony of four previous robbery and assault victims. To prove vileness of the offense, the prosecution relied upon the trial record, including pictures of the deceased’s body and the autopsy report. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied upon Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is “mentally retarded.” The Court was not willing to commute Atkins’ death sentence to life imprisonment based on his IQ score. Atkins appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the execution of criminals with intellectual disability was excessive and therefore prohibited by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. Although the Court stated that, “Those ‘mentally retarded’ persons who meet the law’s requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes”, imposing a death sentence on them is excessive. The decision overturned the Supreme Court of Virginia’s 1989 decision in Penry. Whereas the Supreme Court of Virginia relied upon Penry, in Atkins, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that times have changed since the Penry decision was handed down. The U.S. Supreme Court argued that execution of an individual with an intellectual disability is inconsistent with the “evolving standards of decency test that marks the progress of a maturing society.” The Court held that there was a “national consensus” forbidding execution of the intellectually disabled from the fact that 18 states of the 38 states that permit capital punishment had recently enacted legislation barring execution of the intellectually disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins observed that the execution of intellectually disabled criminals in the states that permitted it was no longer common and noted that the practice of such executions “has become truly unusual” and that a “national consensus” against it was emerging. This was evident in the public reaction and national attention