State supreme court responses to Atkins v. Virginia: Adaptive functioning assessment in light of purposeful planning, premeditation, and the behavioral context of the homicide

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1-25

  Fabian, John M ^a  

^a Minnesota Security Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive functioning; Atkins v. Virginia; Death penalty; Mental retardation

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; CRIME; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; CRIMINAL LAW; FORENSIC MEDICINE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW SUIT; LAWYER; MENTAL CAPACITY; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; PLANNING; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOPATHY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33846657160     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: 15229092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v06n04_01     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. American Association on Mental Retardation. (2002). Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports: Washington, D.C.
2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders. (Test Revision). Washington, DC: Author.
3. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
4. Blume, J., & Voisin, D. Avoiding or Challenging a Diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. The Champion, April, 2000.
5. Brodsky, S., & Galloway, V. (2003). Ethical and Professional Demands for Forensic Mental Health Professionals in Post-Atkins Era. Ethics & Behavior, 13 (1), 3-9.
6. Ceci, S., Scullin, M., & Kanaya, T. (2003). The Difficulty of Basing Death Penalty Eligibility on IQ Cutoff Score for Mental Retardation. Ethics & Behavior, 13 (1), 11-17.
7. Cunningham, M., & Reidy, T. (1998). Antisocial Personality Disorder and Psychopathy: Diagnostic Dilemmas in Classifying Patterns of Antisocial Behavior in Sentencing Evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16, 333.
8. Cunningham, M., & Reidy, T. (2001). A Matter of Life or Death: Special Considerations and Heightened Practice Standards in Capital Sentencing Evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 473-490.
9. Cunningham, M., & Vigen, M. (2002). Death Row Inmate Characteristics, Adjustment, and Confinement: A Critical Review of the Literature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 1-2.
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
11. Drogin, E. "WAIS Not, Want Not?": A Jurisprudent Therapy Approach to Innovations in Forensic Assessment of Intellectual Functioning, The Advocate, September, 1999.
12. Ellis J., & Luckasson, R. Symposium on the ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards: Mentally Retarded Criminal Defendants, 53 Geo Wash L Rev, 444-466 (1985).
13. Ellis, J. (2003). Mental Retardation And The Death Penalty: A Guide To State Legislative Issues. www.aamr.org
14. Everington, C., & Luckasson, R. Addressing the Needs of the Criminal Defendant with Mental Retardation: The Special Educator as a Resource to the Criminal Justice System. Special Educator, Education and Training in Mental Retardation-September, 1989.
15. Ex parte Jose Briseno, 2004 WL 244826 Tex. Crim. App.
16. Ex parte Jerry Jerome Smith, WL 1145475 (2003).
17. Ex parte Tennard, 960 S.W.2d 57 (1997).
18. Fabian, J. Death Penalty Mitigation and the Role of the Forensic Psychologist. Law & Psychology Review, University of Alabama School of Law, Vol. 27, Spring, 2003.
19. Fabian, J. (2005). Life, Death and IQ; It's Much More Than Just a Score: The Dilemma of the Mentally Retarded on Death Row. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5 (4), (In press).
20. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
21. Goldstein, A., & Weiner, I. (2003). Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 11, Forensic Psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating Competencies - Forensic Assessments and Instruments (Second Edition). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
23. Kane, H. (2003). Straight Talk About IQ and the Death Penalty. Ethics & Behavior, 13 (1), 27-33.
24. Katz, L., & Giannelli, P. (2000). Baldwin's Ohio Practice. Ohio Revised Code, 2953.21. Petition for Postconviction Relief.
25. Keyes, D.W., Edwards, J.D., & Derning, T.J. (1998). Mitigating Mental Retardation in Capital Cases: Finding the "Invisible" Defendant. MPDLR, 22 (4).
26. Koocher, G. (2003.) IQ Testing: A Matter of Life or Death. Ethics & Behavior, 13 (1), 1-2.
27. Kuhmo Tire Company, LTD., v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
28. McCoy, D. (1999). Mitigation Strategies in Death Penalty Cases. The Advocate, 21.
29. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).
30. Ressler R., Burgess, A., & Douglas, J. (1988). Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
31. Rondon v. Indiana, 711 N.E. 2d 506 (1999).
32. State v. Stallings, 2004 Ohio 4571.
33. Stebbins, D., & Kenney, S. Zen and the Art of Mitigation Presentation or the Use of Psycho-Social Experts in the Penalty Phase of a Capital Trial. The Champion, August, 1986.
34. Stetler, R. Mental Disabilities and Mitigation. The Champion, 23, April, 1999.
35. Talbot, M. A Killer's IQ. NY Times, June 29, 2003.
36. Taylor, R.L. (1997). Assessment of Individuals With Mental Retardation. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.
37. Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).
38. Tomes, J. (1997). Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't: The Use of Mitigation Experts in Death Penalty Litigation. American Journal of Criminology, 24.