Pennsylvania Rules on Execution of Mentally Deficient: On Tuesday, at Law.com, Leo Strupczewski posted on a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision to allow the execution of "any criminal defendant with mental impairments, short of being legally defined as 'mentally retarded[.]'" The decision, Commonwealth v. Vandivner, can be found here. The 5-2 decision ruled that those seeking waiver of the death penalty must show records demonstrating that mental illness began before the defendant's 18th birthday. Strupczewski quotes Justice Baer's concurring and dissenting opinion for the proposition that this requirement as difficult to prove - as many defendants do not have access to IQ tests recording mental deficiencies before their 18th Birthdays. However, as Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille wrote in the majority, Atkins v. Virginia did not prohibit "imposing the death penalty on a defendant who is mentally deficient but not mentally retarded[.]" Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court may be addressed with a similar issue in Bobby v. Bies (08-598), where the defendant's IQ score placed him between the DSM's "mentally retarded" to "borderline mental functioning" ranges. Kent's post on Bies can be found here.
Justice Scalia Comments on Privacy: At Concurring Opinions, Dan Solove discusses Justice Scalia's speech at a conference hosted by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law. Solove didn't get to attend, but he did find an AP article by Jennifer Peltz discussing the Justice's comments on digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment. In his speech, Justice Scalia commented that he wasn't bothered by internet tracking because some information did not need to remain private - such as the groceries you buy. The Justice does believe, however, that some information should be off limits to internet data gatherers. Solove was troubled by these comments because he views them as "an approach toward conceptualizing privacy that focuses on the nature of the information." Solove believes it is incorrect to view privacy in terms of the nature of the information involved because privacy can still be invaded by compiling small pieces of seemingly unimportant private data. Of course, Justice Scalia's views on the right to privacy are no surprise, the AP also notes that Justice Scalia's speech "reiterated" his views that the Constitution "does not delineate any overarching right to privacy, though the Bill of Rights includes some specific protections with privacy overtones, such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."
"Learned in the Law": Tony Mauro at BLT, correcting an earlier post, finds the Solicitor General isn't the only one statutorily required to be "learned in the law" after all.
Justice Scalia Comments on Privacy: At Concurring Opinions, Dan Solove discusses Justice Scalia's speech at a conference hosted by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law. Solove didn't get to attend, but he did find an AP article by Jennifer Peltz discussing the Justice's comments on digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment. In his speech, Justice Scalia commented that he wasn't bothered by internet tracking because some information did not need to remain private - such as the groceries you buy. The Justice does believe, however, that some information should be off limits to internet data gatherers. Solove was troubled by these comments because he views them as "an approach toward conceptualizing privacy that focuses on the nature of the information." Solove believes it is incorrect to view privacy in terms of the nature of the information involved because privacy can still be invaded by compiling small pieces of seemingly unimportant private data. Of course, Justice Scalia's views on the right to privacy are no surprise, the AP also notes that Justice Scalia's speech "reiterated" his views that the Constitution "does not delineate any overarching right to privacy, though the Bill of Rights includes some specific protections with privacy overtones, such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."
"Learned in the Law": Tony Mauro at BLT, correcting an earlier post, finds the Solicitor General isn't the only one statutorily required to be "learned in the law" after all.
Leave a comment