Texas Takes Intellectually Disabled Inmate Off Death Row
Randall Mays, who has an IQ of 63, was resentenced to life without parole.

Last week, a Texas criminal appeals court took a 64-year-old man off death row and resentenced him to life in prison without parole, after ruling that he was too intellectually disabled to be executed.
Randall Mays was sentenced to death in 2008 for the murder of two police officers in Henderson County, Texas. Since his sentencing, his lawyers have argued that Mays—who has schizophrenia and an IQ of 63—is too severely intellectually disabled to be executed. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing intellectually disabled inmates violates the Eighth Amendment.
"Those mentally retarded persons who meet the law's requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion for Atkins v. Virginia."However, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct."
Questions about May's mental fitness to be executed are longstanding. In 2015, 2019, and 2020, judges stopped planned executions, citing concerns about mental fitness. According to The Texas Tribune, even an expert witness hired by the state of Texas testified that she couldn't dispute Mays' intellectual disability.
This latest ruling will solidify what almost a decade of delayed execution dates have made clear—that Mays' myriad cognitive issues render him unable to understand why he is being executed and, ultimately, unfit to be killed by the state.
"The evidence of Randall's intellectual disability is overwhelming. He has a 63 IQ," Benjamin Wolff, the director of the Texas Office of Capital and Forensic Writs, said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. "His intellectual deficits have been seen, and observed by others, throughout his life from childhood to military service, and throughout his adulthood."
However, the Henderson County District Attorney's Office, which originally prosecuted Mays, has expressed frustration that Mays was taken off death row. "While the justice [the families of the victims] deserve, and Randall Mays has earned is now not an option," District Attorney Jenny Palmer said in a statement, "we gain small comfort in being able to say with confidence that Randall Mays will die in prison."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The mentally deficient are what...
More valuable to society, so must be spared?
Less of a danger to society, so must be spared?
More "deserving", so must be spared?
More likely to be "healed" in jail, by Magic Shrink Powers, and be able to be safely released?
Less costly to maintain, because their lower intelligence makes them less capable of escaping jail?
WHERE is the rational basis to this policy? WHAT is this rational basis, if it exists? Are we merely collectively "virtue signaling", or "Kissing God's Holy Ass", or what, exactly?
Bibi and Biden’s new plan to escape justice.
Misek's new plan to prove himself an imbecilic Nazi shit-pile.
Speaking of mentally deficient, check the following shit out…
https://thehill.com/opinion/4568794-press-top-psychologist-says-trump-likely-to-fall-off-mental-cliff/
Top psychologist says Trump likely to fall off mental cliff
Will THIS be Trump's "Get Out of Jail for Free" TRUMP card?!?!?!
I don't know what a "top psychologist" is, but I'm not sure I care either. Perhaps if a competent psychiatrist gave an opinion it might be worth considering.
"Texas Office of Capital and Forensic Writs"
I have never heard of such an organization, so I looked it up. It's a state-level government ombudsman agency that is tasked with reviewing death penalty cases and ensuring that they are valid.
I half expected it to be an anti-death-penalty advocacy GNO, as we've seen quoted before, occasionally with wildly biased rhetoric. These guys seem legit as an entity at least. So, kudos for the quality of the source.
I remain dubious of the ability to rehabilitate someone with an IQ of 63 to an IQ of any higher number, much less via State methods, and I find the latter idea morally repugnant, probably beyond all others.
No hope far sarc then.
wtf are you talking about? This dude ain't never gettin' out if he was already on death row.
No no, you have it entirely wrong. This agency is part of the Texas Deep State that is thwarting the will of the voters.
Dumb idiot is still dumb.
Five seconds of reading their site tells you that they're "an anti-death-penalty advocacy GNO"
Leftist activists.
So leftists can't have advocates for people on death row? LMFAO dat tyranny is showing through, boss
Jeeze, too bad we don’t have mental institutions for guys like this, maybe he wouldn’t have committed the crime that got him on death row.
People felt so good about themselves for doing that though.
The argument of "he's too stupid to understand that what he did was wrong" isn't a good excuse to me. Give me a solid reason for why he won't do the same or worse again and then we have a path to rehabilitation. I don't have a problem with the penalty for egregious murder being death. Without knowing the circumstances of the murders (conveniently omitted here) it's hard to say whether it's more fitting to let him finish a suitable prison sentence and then be released to someone who can take care of his mental issues or just eliminate him as a future threat
It is a tough thing, because we don't want to punish people for crimes they don't understand they are committing.
On the other hand, we put down dangerous animals, who have even less of an idea.
Wasn't it Texas that put a stop to the traditional 'last meal' on the eve of execution? I believe the last meal is now not special and just the standard fare. I was disappointed, not because the prisoner was to be denied a special treat, but because it must have made things more difficult for the guards. Removing the ritual dehumanized their work and must have had a psychological toll.
we don’t want to punish people for crimes they don’t understand they are committing
Lots of crimes still apply fully whether you are aware of them or not. Even if the actual laws themselves are secret. Especially if they are secret.
" isn’t a good excuse to me. "
It's not an excuse. The guy was found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in jail in all likelihood.
"Without knowing the circumstances of the murders (conveniently omitted here)"
Reveling in the gory details of the case could prejudice the issue against him. There's a wonderful movie with Burt Lancaster as the Birdman of Alcatraz, about a prisoner who takes in birds and eventually becomes an expert in bird health and medicine. He shares his birds with other prisoners and they find love and caring perhaps for the first time in their lives. It's all based on a true story. What the movie doesn't tell you is that the Burt Lancaster character was an extremely nasty piece of work, and deserved every bit of the punishment meted out to him. Revealing any of that would have spoiled the message of the film, the power of love redeeming a lost soul.
"...military service...?"
I was under the impression that the US military administers IQ tests to potential recruits and requires a score >83 to be inducted.
Yikes! He must have lost 20 IQ points from his stint in the army.
Now all he has to do is start self-identifying as a woman, and he can get transferred to minimum security.
The fact that he has serious mental problems and is intellectually limited will really sell the legitimacy of his new identity, since that's what Trans ultimately is.
So how was he competent to stand trial?
Opposed to the state taking lives in general, but if the state can, please explain why that 'right' applies to the mentally competent only.
"that Mays' myriad cognitive issues render him unable to understand why he is being executed and, ultimately, unfit to be killed by the state. "
I understand the idea of how low IQ would make 1st degree - capital charges problematic. You need intent or forethought and a low IQ person might not be adequately equipped for that. But the quote above is weird. If he doesn't understand why he's being executed, he's unfit to be executed. How about if he doesn't understand why he's being imprisoned, does that mean the same thing? ie He's unfit to be imprisoned? It's not really a matter of fitness. If he doesn't understand what's going on, capital charges are not appropriate.
(I'm assuming in Texas 1st degree murders are liable for the death penalty; lower degrees or manslaughter, not, but prison sentences instead.)
I am wondering how he was competent to stand trial.
I guess the same reason he was sentenced to death in the first place. Over zealous prosecution, a hanging judge with little regard for the rights of the defendant, and an overburdened public defender for a lawyer.
The rights of the defendant?
He killed two people. Shot three.
He got a fair trial, with a fair sentence for what he'd done.
We put down dogs who kill people and THEY don't understand they've done anything wrong either.
"He killed two people. Shot three."
And he was arrested, charged, tried and found guilty.
"He got a fair trial"
I think Michael Ejercito raises a fair point. In common law, minors and the mentally and physically unfit can be excused from standing trial.
"We put down dogs "
He's not a dog. In medieval times animals used to be put on trial. Usually dogs for killing sheep. I read about a donkey who was put on trial for having sex with a human male. Because of the many character witnesses testifying to the donkey's sweet disposition and kindly nature, she was found not guilty. The male human was not so lucky and was hanged.
"THEY don’t understand they’ve done anything wrong either."
I can't prove it, but I suspect that dogs are well aware of their wrong doings. At least the ones they're trained to avoid.
they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.
Irrelevant. They are too dangerous to be tolerated. Kill the homicidal retards.