{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2000-12-15-pt1-PgS11810", "2000-12-15", 106, 2, null, null, "JOHNNY PAUL PENRY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S11810", "S11811", "[{\"name\": \"Patrick J. Leahy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles S. Robb\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "146 Cong. Rec. S11810", "Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S11810-S11811]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                           JOHNNY PAUL PENRY\n\n  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the past year there has been an\nextraordinary amount written and spoken in this country about the death\npenalty--actually more than I can recollect having seen before. We have\nlearned that the system of administering capital punishment is gravely\nflawed, and that scores of people have ended up on death row, often for\nmany years, even though they were completely innocent of the crime for\nwhich they were sentenced to death.\n  We have seen how the justice system has serious flaws at every stage,\nand especially if the accused is poor, as are most criminal defendants\nwho are sentenced to death. Lawyers defending people whose lives are at\nstake are often inexperienced or incompetent, and poorly paid. Two\nthirds of death penalty trials nationwide are marred by serious\nconstitutional errors, according to reviewing courts.\n  We have seen public support for the death penalty decrease\nsignificantly. It is still over 50 percent nationally, but it falls\nbelow 50 percent if the alternative is life in prison with no\nopportunity for parole.\n  We have seen Governor Ryan of Illinois appoint a commission of\nexperts, both supporters and opponents of capital punishment, to\ndetermine whether the death penalty can, under any circumstances, be\nadministered reliably so innocent people will never be executed. The\nfindings and recommendations of that commission will be important for\nthe entire country.\n  In Virginia, a State with many people on death row, the legislature\nrecently took note of the growing concerns surrounding capital\npunishment, and decided to review the administration of the death\npenalty in Virginia where there have been serious mistakes.\n  In October, the Virginia Governor pardoned Earl Washington, a\nmentally retarded farmhand, after new DNA tests cleared him of the rape\nand murder that once brought him within 9 days of execution.\n  Just this morning, the Washington Post reported that DNA tests had\ncleared another death row inmate--unfortunately, too late to be of any\nhelp. Before dying of cancer earlier this year, Frank Lee Smith spent\n14 years on Florida's death row for a rape and murder that it now\nappears he did not commit.\n  I have introduced legislation with Senators Gordon Smith, Susan\nCollins, and 12 other Senators, to address some of these most egregious\nflaws. I have spoken many times about our bill, the Innocence\nProtection Act, which we plan to pursue in the 107th Congress.\n  Our legislation addresses the horrendous problem of innocent people\nbeing condemned to death. But today I want to mention briefly a related\nissue which is illustrated by a case in Texas, the State which this\nyear has executed more people than any other State in the post-war era.\n  The Supreme Court stayed the execution of Johnny Paul Penry on\nNovember 16, 2000, less than four hours before he was scheduled to die\nby lethal injection in Texas. The Court has now scheduled the case for\nargument.\n\n[[Page S11811]]\n\n  Johnny Penry, who in 1979 raped and murdered a 22 year old woman, has\nbeen on death row for twenty years. He committed a terrible crime;\nthere has never been any doubt about that. But besides the crime\nitself, what makes Johnny Penry's case so disturbing is that he has an\nIQ of 56. What that means is that he has the intelligence of a 6-year\nold child.\n  Mr. President, 11 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that it is not\ncruel and unusual punishment to execute the mentally retarded. I\ndisagree with that decision. But more importantly, despite the Supreme\nCourt ruling, 13 States with capital punishment and the Federal\nGovernment have forbidden execution of the mentally retarded, and a\nclear majority of Americans oppose the practice.\n  The State Senator who in 1998 sponsored Nebraska's bill to prohibit\nexecution of the mentally retarded later said that it should not have\nbeen necessary because ``no civilized, mature society would ever\nentertain the possibility of executing anybody who was mentally\nretarded.''\n  Executing the mentally retarded is wrong; it is immoral. People with\nmental retardation have a diminished capacity to understand right from\nwrong. As Justice Brennan wrote:\n\n       The impairment of a mentally retarded offender's reasoning\n     ability, control over impulsive behavior, and moral\n     development . . . limits his or her culpability so that,\n     whatever other punishment might be appropriate, the ultimate\n     penalty of death is always and necessarily disproportionate\n     to his or her blameworthiness.\n\n  Proponents of the death penalty argue that it ``saves lives,'' but\nexecuting the mentally retarded cannot be justified on the grounds of\ndeterrence. Let me again quote Justice Brennan, writing in 1989:\n\n       The very factors that make it disproportionate and unjust\n     to execute the mentally retarded also make the death penalty\n     of the most minimal deterrent effect so far as retarded\n     potential offenders are concerned. Intellectual\n     impairments in logical reasoning, strategic thinking, and\n     foresight, the lack of the intellectual and developmental\n     predicates of an ability to anticipate consequences, and\n     impairment in the ability to control impulsivity, mean\n     that the possibility of receiving the death penalty will\n     not in the case of a mentally retarded person figure in\n     some careful assessment of different courses of action. In\n     these circumstances, the execution of mentally retarded\n     individuals is nothing more than the purposeless and\n     needless imposition of pain and suffering.\n\n  People with mental retardation are also more prone to make false\nconfessions simply to please their interrogators, and they are often\nunable to assist their lawyer in preparing a defense.\n  We saw this with Earl Washington, who had an IQ of 69. Arrested for\nbreaking into a neighbor's home during a drinking spree and hitting her\nwith a chair, Washington readily confessed to a series of unsolved\nmurders that he could not have committed.\n  Beyond all of this, executing the mentally retarded severely damages\nthe standing of the United States in the international community. The\nUnited Nations has long condemned this practice. Just last year, the\nU.N. Commission on Human Rights called on nations ``not to impose the\ndeath penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder.''\nWe should join the overwhelming majority of nations who do not execute\nthe mentally retarded.\n  Johnny Penry suffered relentless and severe physical and\npsychological abuse as a child, spends his time in prison coloring with\ncrayons and looking at comic books he cannot read, and still believes\nin Santa Claus. I remember reading that when they stayed his execution\nhe said, ``Does this mean I'm not allowed to have the special meal I\nwas supposed to have?''--The last meal of the condemned man. He could\nnot possibly have assisted meaningfully in his own defense.\n  No one can excuse Johnny Penry's crime, and no one suggests that he\nshould be set free. But the question is what is the appropriate\npunishment for a defendant who is mentally retarded.\n  Neither our Constitution nor our national conscience permits the\nexecution of a 6-year-old child for committing a heinous crime, and\nneither should we execute a person with the mental capacity of a 6-\nyear-old. It offends the very idea of justice.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.\n  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first I inquire, is there any limitation on\nthe length of time to speak?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Virginia\nthat we are in a period for morning business with Senators to speak not\nto exceed 5 minutes.\n  Mr. ROBB. I do not believe I will exceed 5 minutes, but I ask\nunanimous consent to proceed for such time as I may use, consistent\nwith the order for morning business.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2000-12-15-pt1-PgS11810"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.4067390002310276, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}