In this case, Daryl Renard Atkins is accused of the kidnapping, robbery, and murder of Eric Michael Nesbitt. Atkins was also charged with use of a firearm while committing each of these offenses ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.”, 2017). On August 16, 1996, Daryl Renard Atkins and William Jones had been “drinking and smoking weed,” most of the afternoon and evening with various friends, making several trips to the local convenience store. Before the last trip, Atkins had obtained a handgun from one of the friends, they had been drinking with. When receiving the gun Atkins said, “that he wanted to use it, he would bring it back in the morning.” Atkins and Jones walk to the local convenience store again, this time they …show more content…
Nesbitt is a stranger to Atkins. After a short conversation, Nesbitt goes into the store and comes back out. Nesbitt gets in his truck to leave and Atkins Whistles to him. Nesbitt stops the truck. Atkins force his and Jones way into the truck. ” As Jones drives the truck away from the convenience store, Atkins demanded that Nesbitt surrenders his wallet. Atkins removed $60 from the wallet and was returning it to Nesbitt when he noticed a bank card inside the wallet. On Atkins' instruction, Jones drives to a branch of Crestar Bank, where Atkins forced Nesbitt to withdraw $200from the bank's drive-through automatic teller machine, using his own bank card. Atkins was holding Nesbitt at gunpoint the whole time. Atkins then gives his accomplice driving directions to an isolated area of York’s County, Virginia where Atkins shoots Nesbitt 6 times ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.", …show more content…
However, both Atkins and Jones claimed the other shot Nesbitt, rather than themselves. Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death. Affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.", 2017) The Constitutional principles this case is based on the Eight Amendment which says, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Therefore the question that should be asked is, Is the execution of a defendant with intellectual disabilities (mental retardation) cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.",
In Kansas State Penitentiary, a man named Floyd Wells is laying on his bed listening to the radio. He hears the story of the Clutter murders, and how the crime was committed. Wells was shocked by this information, as it was identical to a crime Dick Hickock had told him. Floyd was Dick’s first cellmate in prison, and was even a former employee of River Valley Farm. It was Floyd who had informed Dick of the Clutter’s, how to house was laid out, who would be there, but Floyd was unaware of Dick’s intentions.
In the case of Moore v. Texas, “the Supreme Court will face the question of whether it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to use outdated medical standards in assessing intellectual disabilities to determine whether an individual may be executed.” This really stood out to me, to think that he committed the act of a murder in 1980, when he took the life of a grocery store clerk and they are questioning if he should face the consequences that he was given. In my opinion if you chose to take the life of any individual you must pay for your actions, I feel that many people use “intellectual disability” as a way to avoid being put to death. I do agree many people have mental sickness such as “schizophrenia, bipolar disorders etc” but if you
On a dark scary evening, Lloyd Wickliffe was working as a security guard in a McDonald’s on Halsted Street on Chicago’s far South Side. At a little past eight, during an armed robbery attempt, Wickliffe was killed by a shotgun blast, and another security guard, Alvin Thompson, was wounded. The attackers, Edgar Hope and Andrew Wilson, did not get any money, but they stole the handguns the guards were carrying. Alton Logan was home asleep, nowhere near the robbery. Later he wounded guard, Thompson, was questioned and correctly identified Edgar Hope as one of the shooters.
In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.
In the late hours of August 16, 1996, two young men, Daryl Renard Atkins and William Jones, both drunk and high off of marijuana, kidnapped twenty-one-year-old Eric Nesbitt. The two young men crossed paths with Nesbitt outside of a 7-Eleven, then proceeded to force “their way into his small Nissan pickup at gunpoint, took him to his ATM machine and made him withdraw money.” The trio then proceeded to drive to an isolated area, where Atkins shot Nesbitt eight times, before Atkins and Jones drove away, leaving Nesbitt to die. Daryl Atkins would later be convicted of abduction, armed robbery, as well as capital murder, and sentenced to death; because Jones agreed to testify against Atkins, “the prosecution ultimately permitted Jones to plead
Mr. Gibbs looked at the sign in front of the house and wondered about the room for rent. This is a very hilarious part, when Mortimer accidently poured himself a glass of wine and almost took a sip his aunts said “no” then he put it down. The elderly man almost took a sip but Mortimer caught him and chased him out of the house. “Get out of here. Do you want to be poisoned?
Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on behalf of George Milton I would like to thank you for your participation in this case. George is being charged with the murder of Lennie Smalls. There is beyond reasonable doubt that my client committed this crime. However, George did not requisite the motive to kill Lennie. For someone to be found guilty of murder, they should at least requisite the motive or intent of purposely trying to bring physical pain to the victim.
“I believe you’re hungry—or been hungry—to try to snatch my pocketbook.” (2) Roger explains that he was just trying to get money for some blue suede shoes when she then tells him all he needed to do was ask for the money. During dinner Ms. Jones offers more ten cent cake to him which he willingly takes and is surprised by her kindness and openness to him. When it was time to leave Ms. Luella Bates Washington Jones said “Now, here, take this ten dollars and buy yourself some blue suede shoes.” (3) Roger wanted to say something to the kind woman but couldn’t, it was a moment when someone was truly speechless.
Tell us now!” Gever shouted angrily at the guard. “Uh... he’s down the hall, to your left.” Gever and the others then ran past him, but they didn’t see the pistol the guard pulled out of his uniform until it was too late. The guard pulled the trigger, instantly striking and killing
A life of severe disability, is not a life worth living. Therefore, an infant born with a severe physical or cognitive impairment should not be allowed to live. Or any person for that matter, regardless of age who suffers from a severe cognitive disability should be lawfully killed. At least that is a belief held by a certain professor at Princeton University. Harriet McBryde Johnson, a disability advocate and lawyer had the opportunity to debate these beliefs with Professor Peter Singer.
January 8, 2011, who knew that Jared Lee Loughner would fire a gun killing 6 victims and injuring 13 including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona. Many people may know him as the mugshot grin guy, but others see him as mentally unstable. There are many questions that come to mind when thinking of this tragedy such as how the role of politics play apart in this incident, what was his mental condition at the time of the crime, and how would treating his mental illness play in his defense. By exploring Jared Loughner’s early life and psychological issues, one can gain a better understanding on the case and the guilty verdict.
To prove vileness of the offense, the prosecution relied upon the trial record, including pictures of the deceased’s body and the autopsy report. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied upon Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is “mentally retarded.” The Court was not willing to commute Atkins’ death sentence to life imprisonment based on his IQ score. Atkins appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Should the mentally challenged get another chance if they have killed someone and could do it again. No one should get another chance if they have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. They should not get another chance because everyone is taught right from wrong and in John Steinbeck 's book Of Mice and Men Lennie Knew what he did was wrong and that is why he went to the creek where George told him to go if he ever got in trouble like he had before and he would again. George is justified in killing Lennie because he knew Lennie kill again and would never get better and their dream would never come true, it was a mercy killing and was the best thing for Lennie at that moment, and George knew Lennie would keep making the same mistakes and eventually would make one that even he could not forgive him for. That is why George is justified.
It’s Not working out. By:Taija Jones. The 8th amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, Nor excessive fines imposed, Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” . With that being said if the 8th amendment applies for cruel punishments of death penalties then why is it still happening.
Tylenol Murders Tylenol. The number one medication to relieve your headache was now know one of the most deadliest thing in the world. On september of 1982 seven people ingested Extra Strength Tylenol and died unexpectedly. On that same day investigators revealed that the tylenol was poisoned with sodium cyanide. A lot of investigating happened and it lead to 10 suspect, but only two main suspect stood out.