Georgia House Passes Bill Easing Threshold for Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases
The Georgia House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill on Tuesday that seeks to lower the evidentiary bar for defendants facing the death penalty to prove intellectual disability. The legislation, championed by Republican State Representative Bill Werkheiser, aims to reform what many consider one of the nation’s most stringent standards for intellectual disability claims in capital cases. If enacted, the bill would make it easier for defendants to demonstrate intellectual disability, rendering them ineligible for a death sentence.
Werkheiser’s motivation for introducing the bill stems, in part, from the execution of Willie James Pye earlier this year. Pye, convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of his former girlfriend, Alicia Lynn Yarbrough, had his lawyers argue that he suffered from intellectual disability and brain damage, citing a low IQ score. Despite these arguments, Pye was executed, a result that deeply troubled Werkheiser. Previous attempts by Werkheiser to address the issue had stalled in committee, but this latest effort has garnered significant support, culminating in its unanimous passage in the House. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
The bill’s passage highlights the complex and often controversial intersection of capital punishment, intellectual disability, and legal standards. While Georgia was the first state to outlaw the death penalty for intellectually disabled individuals in 1988, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this principle in 2002, ruling that executing such individuals constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the court left the definition of intellectual disability to individual states. Georgia distinguishes itself by requiring defendants to prove intellectual disability "beyond a reasonable doubt," a standard considered the highest burden of proof in the legal system and one that only Georgia employs in this context.
The proposed legislation seeks to address this outlier status by not only lessening the burden of proof but also by introducing procedural changes to the trial process. Specifically, the bill mandates a pretrial hearing where defendants can present evidence of intellectual disability, provided prosecutors agree. If the case proceeds to trial and results in a conviction, the defendant can then present evidence of intellectual disability to the same jury in a separate phase of the proceedings. A finding of intellectual disability would result in a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
"I believe it is incumbent upon the state to protect those who cannot protect themselves," Werkheiser stated, encapsulating the core argument for the bill’s passage. Advocates argue that the current high standard creates an unacceptable risk of executing individuals who may not fully understand their culpability or the consequences of their actions.
The case of Warren Lee Hill, executed in Georgia in 2015 for the murder of a fellow inmate, further underscores the concerns surrounding the state’s stringent standard. Hill’s lawyers argued that he was intellectually disabled, and a judge stated in 2002 that Hill would likely have been found intellectually disabled under a less demanding standard of proof. Similarly, in 2021, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for Rodney Young, finding that he had failed to prove intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt. However, then-Presiding Justice David Nahmias expressed his support for legislative efforts to lower the threshold.
While the bill has garnered broad support, it faces opposition, particularly from prosecutors who are wary of the proposed procedural changes. T. Wright Barksdale III, district attorney for the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit, testified in committee hearings that while he does not oppose amending the "reasonable doubt" standard, he is against the addition of a pretrial hearing and other changes to the trial process. He argues that the bill "cherry-picks from several different states" and would make the process unduly complicated, potentially preventing the death penalty from being carried out altogether.
Barksdale contends that the bill, as constructed, would "cripple us to a point that we would never have a real fair shot at ever obtaining a death penalty for anyone." He suggests that if lawmakers wish to effectively abolish the death penalty, they should do so directly rather than through procedural complexities. However, lawmakers have explicitly stated that abolishing the death penalty is not their intention.
Proponents of the bill, like Mazie Lynn Guertin, executive director of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, argue that the procedural changes are crucial to ensuring a fair and impartial assessment of intellectual disability claims. They contend that jurors who have already heard the gruesome details of a crime may struggle to evaluate evidence of intellectual disability without bias. Guertin emphasizes that most states allow defendants to prove their intellectual disability before trial and have separate processes for determining guilt and intellectual disability. She believes that simply changing the standard of proof is insufficient to prevent the execution of individuals with valid claims of intellectual disability.
During committee hearings, Republican and Democrat lawmakers seemed largely unconvinced by arguments that the procedural changes would unduly complicate the process. They noted that death penalty cases are inherently complex and time-consuming, involving numerous motions and hearings prior to trial.
Democrat Representative Esther Panitch, a criminal defense attorney, articulated the sentiment that the death penalty, if applied, should be reserved for the "worst of the worst" and only after ensuring that the individual fully understands their culpability. "We have the death penalty in this state. I’m not going to debate it," Panitch said. "But if we’re going to mete out the ultimate punishment, it should only be for the worst of the worst, and those we have spent the time to make sure understand their culpability."
The bill now faces its next hurdle in the Senate, where it will undergo further scrutiny and debate. Its fate will ultimately determine whether Georgia joins the majority of states in adopting a more lenient standard for evaluating intellectual disability claims in capital cases, potentially preventing the execution of individuals who may not fully understand the severity of their actions. The outcome of this legislative effort will have profound implications for the future of capital punishment in Georgia and the protection of vulnerable defendants facing the ultimate penalty.
