LSTD 510 4-1 US CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES

This LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution and The States assignment entails a consideration of a scenario whereby state law violates federal law insofar as it prohibits the execution of mentally disabled persons. You will use the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and outline important cases and theories with emphasis on related disciplines to your reasoning. It aims to give a reasonable legal justification for the unconstitutionality of the state’s actions.

Can Buddy be executed?

• LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States: Analyze after the precedent set by Atkins v., is Buddy able to be executed under the state’s new law. Virginia.

Example

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause states that when state law conflicts with federal law, federal law wins out. This principle is terribly important in the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments provision, especially so in cases in which the death penalty is sought and the defendant has an intellectual disability.

In Atkins v. In Atkins v. Virginia, U.S. Sup. Ct. 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that providing for the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities offended the Eighth Amendment proscription of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. Virginia., n.d.). We now require an intellectually accurate framework to cope with the landmark decision. These criteria frequently include IQ tests (e.g., one of these sits at about an IQ below 70-75 as indicating disability) and the assessment of adaptive behavior and skill, and an assessment that these must be significantly limited in the conceptual, social, and practical domains (of the Achievable Scales; Fletcher & Miciak, 2024).

Buddy’s IQ score 76 is close to the standard cut-off, making his classification difficult. While they do, adaptive behavior assessments and indications of his intellectual and developmental challenges over his lifetime, such as his history of abuse and education, are critical. The criteria listed under the state law take no account of the continuum of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior; this includes an IQ score above 75. The narrow focus could be criticized as incompatible with Atkins, in that Knoxville claims the latter requires a greater overall evaluation of the intellectual disability.

What major theories or practices from allied fields (e.g., education, healthcare, public policy, psychology, sociology, etc.) are advanced in determining the extent of intellectual disabilities? How can such data be used in Buddy’s legal case, whether by the prosecution or the defense?

Major Theories or Practices from Allied Fields

• Present LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States theories of psychology and sociology of how intellectual disabilities should be assessed as they apply in Buddy’s legal case.e.

Example

Understanding the multifaceted nature of intelligence and adaptive functioning is an application of major theories from psychology and sociology used by psychologists to assess what constitutes intellectual disability. These disciplines promote the integration of evaluation that includes environmental, genetic and social factors affecting the cognitive and adaptive skills. The insights also have implications for legal discourse on individuals such as Buddy who, based on intellectual capacity and life history, are likely impaired.

What does your state provide regarding the death penalty?  How does it compare to the Eighth Amendment? Be sure to carefully review whether your home state is still enforcing the death penalty.  Provide data about how the residents of this state feel about whether it still enforces the death penalty or not.

State Laws and the Eighth Amendment

• Compare LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States regarding the death penalty with your state’s provisions to the Eighth Amendment. Give data on how you state’s public feels about the death penalty.

Example

When it comes to the death penalty, many states (and my hypothetical home, California), have taken such things as the abolition of, or moratorium on capital punishment. Therefore, for example, California has not executed anyone since 2006; in 2019, the governor ordered a moratorium on executions (Haberman, 2022). The stance comes as residents become increasingly uncomfortable with the death penalty, akin to a national trend that has increasingly turned against the death penalty, to be replaced with life without parole.

These state-level trends away from the death penalty are consistent with the Eighth Amendment’s nearly proscriptive ban on cruel and unusual punishments, which compares to broad standards of decency as well as more human rights based approaches of criminal justice.

If you could change the Eighth Amendment, set forth how you would alter it so that it can be clearer regarding what is “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Proposed Changes to the Eighth Amendment

• Argue how the LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States Eighth Amendment needs to be proposed and clarified to the current standards, dictating as to what is considered ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment.

Example

To clarify what constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishments and ensure consistent application across states, particularly regarding the death penalty, I propose the following amendment to the Eighth Amendment:

“No excessive bail shall be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, including the death penalty that shall not be applied at any time. The ban applies to any type of corporal punishment or penal sanction that physically or morally injures.”

Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how these elements influenced the specific language you chose for your proposed change.

Rationale for the Amendment

• Justify. Why did you include the LSTD 510 4 1 US Constitution And The States and how does it address the above issues.

Example

The amendment will clearly and categorically prohibit the death penalty and will stand in accordance with evolving human rights standards, and the growing moral and practical issues with the death penalty. The typography is informed by the wording, which was refined to explicitly state the breadth of punished punishments, in response to considerable discourse over the morality, utility and equity of capital punishment. This representation of cruelty offers modern analyses that include psychological suffering, as we know of cruelty today rather than only physical.

Assess the significance of your proposed change in light of the major debates or developments that you have analyzed in this Discussion.

Significance of the Proposed Change

• Assess the LSTD 510 4 1 state importance of your proposed changes in the light of the major legal debates and developments from the assignment.

Example

This amendment proposed would change criminal justice to conform to the constitutionally enshrined evolving standards of decency. Death Penalty in Israel addresses ethical concerns related to the death penalty such as its punishing the poor, minorities and those with mental obstacles (such as Buddy). It would also end definitively the death penalty in the U.S., putting U.S. law in line with human rights trends around the world and reinforcing the protection of human dignity in the criminal process.

Conclusion

Summarize the most important Lstd 510 4 1 US Constitution And The State starting points, and emphasize that the concept of equal protection ensures that people are accorded humane and fair treatment whenever in law.we follow with LSTD 510 5-1 Interests Of The State in the next module. In the end, Buddy’s case highlights the urgent importance of using a comprehensive and humane approach to justice which respects constitutional guarantees and reflects current understandings of intellectual disability and human rights. The proposed amendment to the Eighth Amendment would inscribe those principles, thereby guaranteeing that the American legal system does in fact maintain itself at the highest levels of fairness and compassion.

References

Atkins v. Virginia. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved June 22, 2024, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/536/304 

Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2024). Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities and Intellectual Disabilities. Assessment, 31(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231194992 

Haberman, L. (2022). More than Moratoriums? The Obstacles to Abolishing California’s Death Penalty. Cal. Legal Hist., 17, 333.