Pennsylvania Death Penalty Action

Amnesty is asking Pennsylvania residents to contact their representatives and ask for a NO vote on House Bill 698, at least in its present form.

Here are the basics:

Please oppose House Bill 698, which, in its current form, would require that a determination of a defendant's mental retardation be made by the jury after it has convicted the defendant.
This legislation is opposed by professionals in the mental retardation field, civil libertarians and learned counsel, as well as by faith communities.
Post-trial determination would cause the Commonwealth to incur the costs of an unnecessary capital trial, if a defendant is then found to be mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for the death penalty.
This bill runs counter to national trends: Of the eight states that have implemented standards since the Atkins decision, seven have opted for pre-trial determination (18 death penalty states passed statutes before Atkins ).
We must pass legislation that truly protects the constitutional rights of those with mental retardation – House Bill 698 will not accomplish that objective.

Background
While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court defined mental retardation using definitions from two advocacy groups, there are two key questions remaining: who determines retardation and when that determination is made. There are two bills in both chambers of the legislature that address these questions. Senate Bill 631 and House Bill 1410 mandate that the determination on mental retardation is made before trial by the judge, and this legislation is supported by advocates for persons with mental retardation, faith communities, and civil libertarians. Amnesty International USA also supports the passage of House Bill 1410.

Senate Bill 334 and House Bill 698, however, require the mental retardation determination be made by the jury after it has convicted the defendant, and these bills are supported by the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Amnesty International USA opposes House Bill 698.

Legislators need to be educated on this issue. At the beginning of the session when these four bills were introduced, some lawmakers signed on to co-sponsor both bills in their respective chamber, not realizing the difference between them. We must convince lawmakers to pass legislation that truly protects the constitutional rights of those with mental retardation.