“If retarded people with a mental age of 5 could be executed, does that mean that 5 year olds should be executed ? Justice David Souter made the statement during oral arguments in Atkins v. Virginia. The questions posed by this argument include the inquiry into: When is someone disabled enough to be irresponsible for a crime? When in a person's development are they able to understand right, wrong, and consequences? Finally, in the eyes of the law, what do we do? Some say it is normal that, since they are adults, they should be charged and treated as such. Others feel that some retarded people cannot understand their crimes and that the charging process is more complex. When the question of an individual's life is at stake, who is right to decide where and what ethics to choose? The most notable Supreme Court case regarding this issue was Atkins v. Virginia in 2002. Deryl Atkins was sentenced to life in prison after robbing a man and shooting him eight times with his accomplice. Atkins had an IQ of 59 and the courts consider legal mental retardation lower than an IQ of 70. Atkins was saved from the death penalty because of this and has saved many others since. Most recently, Freddie Lee Hall has been on death row for over 30 years and his case is under review due to the previously mentioned case. He tested his IQ several times and it was between 60 and 80, most often in the 70s. The problem is that the Supreme Court gives each state the freedom to decide what IQ is justified as a retard mental, as well as what happens to criminals who meet this standard. Currently, the United States has 12 states that do not allow death. penalty. 18 states do not allow middle of paper dead people to fully appreciate the impact of their condition on their behavior. Mentally disabled respondents, particularly those who are not financially well-off, are regularly challenged by inadequate guidelines. They claim that courts frequently choose litigators who are "excessively inexperienced, exhausted, or uncaring" to legitimately protect their clients and let their defendants make their own closing arguments. Finally, respondents with mental retardation face members of the criminal equity framework, including lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and juries – who are incredibly misinformed about the nature and significance of mental disability and are regularly more concerned about the political and expert outcomes of acquiring mental disability. “triumphant” death penalty rather than truly recognizing the impact of this condition on the perception of the individual.