Document Category: Intellectual Disabilities

This amicus brief argues that mandatory sentencing regimes prevent individualized sentencing that accounts for the unique vulnerabilities of people with ID (pp. 4–9, 13-16, 20–25). Drawing on Atkins, Roper, Graham, and Miller, the brief explains that ID, like youth, significantly reduces culpability and weakens the traditional sentencing justifications of retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation (pp. 16-20). Modern science disproves the stereotype that people with IDs are incapable of rehabilitation (pp. 20-25). The brief concludes that mandatory LWOP schemes must be replaced with individualized sentencing that assesses a person’s individual characteristics and potential for reform (pp. 25–27). Defenders can use the research collected in this brief to make mitigation arguments for clients with IDs at both sentencing and pretrial release stages.