Daryl Atkin
 The pieces of the appellant Daryl Renard
Atkins found guilty of kidnapping, armed robbery
and murder and was sentenced to death in Virginia
state
court.1996 years 8 months 16 daysMidnight, Atkins a
nd William Jones holding semi-automatic pistol,
hijacked Eric Nesbitt , forced him to their pickup
on ATM withdrawals, on the pickup lens recorded
the time to take money shot. Then, turn him into a
secluded place, continuous shooting toward
its 8 times, to kill.
 In the penalty phase, two each to testify, were confirmed
to be the case the other party the burden of responsibility
and related details, but as to who killed Nesbitt , the
second person that the other side should be
responsible. As Jones 's testimony than Atkins 's more
mutual coupling, credibility, and finally adopted the jury
believed his testimony, and determine the Atkins guilty
of murder. In the sentencing phase, the authority entitled
to issue a further victim impact evidence and prove the
other two aggravating circumstances: the risk of future
( Future dangerousness ) and "shameful crime of"
( Vileness of the Offense ).
 To prove that Atkins has a future risk, the right authority
to prove that a felony criminal record and had been
subjected to the same issue of the robbery and attack the
testimony of four witnesses; to prove the second
aggravating circumstance, the issue of the trial record,
including photographs of dead bodies and autopsy
reports. While the defendant based on forensic Evan
Nelson , a license to provide a defense. Evan
Nelson doctors before trial, of Atkins conducted an
inspection and knowledge-based Atkins who talks, school
and court records, as well as a standard intelligence test
( Atkins score of 59 ), its that Atkins suffers from "mild
the mentally retarded.
 " Nevertheless, the jury finally sentenced Atkins to
death. However, it is worth noting that since the trial
court used a misleading verdict form [ 257 Va. 160,
510 SE 2d 445 (1999) ], which had the case for
retrial. In the retrial process, Nelson once again to
testify. Also issued in the state expert evidence to the
contrary, by Stanton Samenow that Atkins is not
mentally retarded, and that "at least normal
intelligence," and to demonstrate that their antisocial split personality. ( App. 476. ) To this end, the
jury again sentenced Atkins to death.
 Subsequently, the Virginia Supreme Court had confirmed
his death. [ 260 Va. 375, 385, 534 SE 2d 312, 318
(2000) ] Atkins , Virginia Supreme Court did not argue
that compared with similar cases, the penalty is not
applicable to its proportionate, but he claims he "suffered
have mental retardation, it is not applicable to death.
" ( Id. , at 386, 534 SE 2D, at 318 ) the majority of the
Supreme Court of Virginia Supreme Court based
on Penry case ruling ( 260 Va., at 387, 534 SE 2D, at
319 ), rejected the claim. And that the court has no
intention because Atkins intelligence test scores and to
the death penalty commuted to life imprisonment.
 ( Id., at 390, 534 SE 2D, at 321 ) but Hassell judge
together Koontz judge to challenge the court's decision,
they are opposed to Samenow doctors believe
that Atkins has a normal IQ's view that it is legally
insufficient admissible, and advocate for Intelligence is
only a 9 ~ 12 -year-old level apply the death penalty is
excessive. ( Id., at 394, 395-396, 534 SE 2D, at 323-324 )
In their view, "In a way, mentally challenged on their
criminal acts can be compared to ordinary nonaccountability, This is irresistible. on its definition,
relative to the average person, this person has been
substantially limited. a noble, civilized society, the
judicial system if not properly consider these issues, then,
will fabled. " ( Id., at 397, 534 S. E. 2D, at 325 )
 The importance of these opposing views, and noted
in the past 13 years, the area of legislation
tremendous changes have taken place, the Supreme
Court agreed to its in Penry case [ 533 US
976 (2001) ] re-established the legal considerations,
and this piece made of the following sentence:
Division of mental retardation death penalty is the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution[2] the
prohibition of "cruel and very sentence."
 First, if the penalty relative to the offense is concerned, is not
appropriate and proportionate, it is "excessive" and
prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution. ( Weems V.United States, 217 US 349,
367 ) present, to determine whether excessive punishment is
generally based on the "benchmark appropriate behavior" and
made. ( Trop V. Dulles, 356 US 86 , 100-101 ) on the evolution
of standards in this review should be based on the proportion
of under the widest range of available objective evidence
( Harmelin V. Michigan, 501 US 957, 1000 ) , which The most
clear and reliable evidence is from the state legislature
enacted the law. ( Penry, 492 US, at 331 ) In addition, the
Constitution and to authorize the Supreme Court on all
citizens and their legislators whether a reasonable decision to
make their own judgments.
 Secondly, Penry case judgments later, great changes
have taken place. Penry case, ruling that even when two
states have similar laws prohibiting the death penalty,
and 14 states completely abandoned the death penalty,
but this does not prove that the country has also become
such a general consensus against the death penalty. ( US
492, at 334 ) However, since then, there are a
considerable number of states recognize the death
penalty for mentally retarded is not appropriate, and in
other states, similar bills have been at least one hospital
in the parliament approved. The number of these states
does not constitute a majority , but the change in the
trend is consistent.
 Although the anti-crime legislation protecting violent
criminals than the legislation more popular, but many
states still prohibit the death penalty for mentally
retarded persons (and no state legislature to restore such
attempt to re-apply the death penalty), which provides
sufficient evidence to indicate that the current social
awareness may be responsible for mentally retarded
persons of less than ordinary criminals. When it was
noted that the legislators to explore this issue in more
than voted overwhelmingly to support such a ban death
penalty, it will be more persuasive. More and, even in
those allowed to apply the death penalty for mentally
retarded state, seldom its application.
 Finally, an independent assessment on the issue that the Court no
reason not to agree with the consensus reached by the
legislature. Medical definition of mental retardation is not only
explain their below-average intellectual functioning, but that they
also exist in the ability to adapt to significant restrictions. Mentally
retarded are generally able to distinguish right from wrong and have
the legal capacity to stand trial, but, according to the medical
definition, they understand and process information,
communication skills, awareness of errors from practice and the
ability to learn, logical reasoning ability to control impulses and the
ability to understand others have been reflected in greatly
reduced. The lack of these capabilities does not mean that mentally
retarded persons can be exempted from criminal sanctions, but
their behavior can reduce accountability. Given the lack of ability to
mentally retarded persons, the Court's view on the death penalty,
the legislature provided the majority opinion in support of two
reasons.
 First, there is a serious problem, that's two reasons to support
capital punishment - retribution and extreme crime deterrence whether the crime for mentally retarded people. On retribution, the
penalty depends on the strength of the offender can be
accountability. If the common responsibility of the murderer can
not yet evidence to the legitimacy of the death penalty
( Godfrey V. Georgia, 446 US 420, 433 ) , then, may be responsible
for a less obviously the mentally retarded can not apply the death
penalty had. The penalty in terms of deterrence, because mental
retardation in cognitive and behavioral disabilities, while making
them available on the moral responsibility of the relatively smaller;
the other hand, due to such defects, but also makes them not may
be completely aware of their behavior may have been subjects for
some death penalty, and thus control their own behavior.
 Moreover, even if exempt mentally retarded persons to
death for the death penalty does not reduce the deterrent
power of ordinary people. Furthermore, intellectual
disabilities as a whole, it is the possibility of the death
penalty section is higher than the average person, this is
because: they may unconsciously confessed that he had
never committed a number of "non-existent" crime; and
can not give Their defense lawyers to the effective
assistance; and they are the typical "witnesses can not"
( Poor witnesses ); while their behavior may make
unfounded produce their lack of remorse for the crimes
committed by the impression.
 Therefore, cassation and remand.
 Stevens judge issued a court
opinion, O'Connor Justice, Kennedy Justice, Souter Justi
ce, Ginsburg , and Justice Breye R Justice and other 5 bit shared the same view. Chief Justice Rehnquist issued
a dissenting opinion, Scalia and Justice Thomas agreed
with the judges. At the same time, Scalia Justice has
issued a objection, Chief
Justice Rehnquist and Thomas joined the Chief Justice
also views.
 Reference:http://www.huiling.org.cn/Article/Print.asp?I
D=201