Georgia must stop executing the disabled

It’s past time we recognize that state of Georgia is violating the 2002 U.S. Supreme ruling that bars imposing the death penalty on intellectually disabled defendants. Our procedures for imposing capital punishment — unique among all the states — are failing on two specific procedural levels leaving disabled people vulnerable to execution when they should never have been on death row in the first place. 

The Georgia General Assembly has an opportunity this year to bring the state back into compliance. 

Several recent news stories, including one in the Georgia Recorder, illustrate the problems Georgia continues to have in lawfully carrying out the harshest death penalty statue in the United States. 

One revealed that state prosecutors failed to take action to reverse improperly imposed death sentences against at least two intellectually disabled men sitting on death row for decades. Another showed how it took 15 years before a Fulton County judge vacated a death penalty sentence for a defendant with an IQ in the mid-60s, well-below the level experts believe proves intellectual impairment. 

And less than a year ago — in the state’s first execution since a voluntary suspension of death penalty warrants during Covid — Willie James Pye was put to death despite having an IQ of less than 70. 

Why is this happening? 

One reason is that Georgia is the only state that requires a finding that a defendant is intellectually disabled “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is a standard that is nearly impossible to reach and much stricter than other death penalty states where defendants are only required to prove disability with a preponderance of evidence. 

The second reason is Georgia, once again, is the only state that forces juries to make the determination of intellectual disability. In and of itself, this part of the death penalty law places an extreme hardship on twelve ordinary citizens. It is hard enough for jurors to decide guilt or innocence. They also have to consider IQ scores, school performance, and other evidence presented by experts, along with testimony from people who believe the defendant’s low IQ is a factor in the case. It is little wonder then why no defendant in Georgia has been able to prove disability beyond a reasonable doubt. 

In other states this important process takes place before the trial court judge and is decided before a jury is empaneled. 

In our state, as these recent cases in the news have proven, the state of Georgia was prepared to execute men with extremely low IQs and lacking the intellectual capacity to understand the seriousness of the crime they were accused of committing. The procedures our state uses to condemn people to death make a mockery of Georgia’s motto of “wisdom, justice and moderation.” 

There is a simple fix for this. House Bill 123 now before the General Assembly changes these two critical portions of the death penalty statute. It would change the standard for determination to a preponderance of evidence and require the presiding judge, prior to jury selection, to hold a hearing, listen to evidence and decide whether a defendant is intellectually disabled. If the judge determines the defendant is disabled, the death penalty would be taken off the table. Prosecutors would still try the case and could ask the jury to impose a sentence of life in prison. 

No other changes to the death penalty statute are included in HB 123, which has garnered bipartisan support since being introduced earlier this month. 

Make no mistake. Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty stands firmly for abolishing our capital punishment law, as 23 other states have done over the years. There are myriad ethical, legal and moral problems inherent with capital punishment, not the least of which it has proven ineffective at preventing violent crime and is so often imposed disproportionately against the poor and people of color. 

So, it is important to emphasize that House Bill 123 does not abolish the death penalty. This bill is narrowly tailored to ensure the rights of the most vulnerable defendants from paying the ultimate price for actions they are incapable of fully comprehending. 

We pray the members of the General Assembly in their wisdom will agree that at a minimum, we must make these critical changes to the state’s procedure.