Georgia bill lowering threshold for proving intellectual disability in death penalty cases heads to Gov. Kemp

The Georgia Senate passed a bill on Monday easing the state’s strict burden of proof required for a death row inmate to be deemed intellectually disabled, which would make them ineligible for a death sentence.

The Peach State currently has the highest threshold in the nation for a person to prove they have an intellectual disability, allowing them to avoid the death penalty. 

After a yearslong push to lessen requirements, the Senate approved H.B. 123 on Monday by a 53-1 vote. The measure now heads to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s desk after it was unanimously approved by the House earlier this month.

Georgia became the first state to outlaw the death penalty for intellectually disabled people in 1988. The U.S. Supreme Court later followed suit and ruled in 2002 that executing intellectually disabled people violates constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

GEORGIA HOUSE ADVANCES BILL TO EASE DEATH PENALTY LAW FOR INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED PEOPLE

The Supreme Court allowed states to determine the threshold for a person to be considered intellectually disabled. Georgia requires proof of intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt, making it the only state with such a high burden of proof.

H.B. 123 would lower the standard to a preponderance of evidence and amend trial procedures to ensure people facing a death sentence receive a fair chance at convincing judges and jurors of their disability.

The bill would allow defendants to present evidence of intellectual disability at a pretrial hearing that would be mandatory if prosecutors agree. There would also be a separate process before the same jury for determining whether someone is guilty and has an intellectual disability.

Defendants who are found to have an intellectual disability would be exempt from the death penalty and receive alternative sentences.

In multiple cases in Georgia, lawyers have unsuccessfully argued that their clients had intellectual disabilities. Judges in some of these cases said they might have succeeded if the state’s rules were less strict.

GEORGIA MAN SENTENCED TO DEATH SEEKS CLEMENCY ON GROUNDS OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

When the Georgia Supreme Court in 2021 upheld the death penalty for Rodney Young in a 2008 killing, the justices found he had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was intellectually disabled, but then-Presiding Justice David Nahmias wrote that he would “embrace” legislative efforts to lower the threshold.

In another case, Warren Lee Hill was executed in Georgia in 2015 for killing a fellow detainee despite his lawyers arguing that he had an intellectual disability. In 2002, a judge said that if the state used a lower standard than reasonable doubt, Hill would likely have been found intellectually disabled.

Willie James Pye, whose IQ was allegedly low enough to show he was intellectually disabled, was executed in 2024 after his conviction in the 1993 rape and shooting death of his former girlfriend, Alicia Lynn Yarbrough. Pye’s lawyers argued he was intellectually disabled and brain-damaged.

In the House, Democratic Rep. Esther Panitch argued that executing people with intellectual disabilities is a “moral failure.”

“How we protect the most vulnerable and intellectually disabled individuals facing the death penalty is the ultimate test of our collective moral character, and I submit that we must choose compassion over retribution and understanding over punishment,” Panitch said.

LAWYERS FOR ‘MORBIDLY OBESE’ DEATH ROW INMATE ARGUE HIS WEIGHT COULD CAUSE BOTCHED LETHAL INJECTION 

District attorneys who opposed the rule change in the past have said more recently that they are fine with changing the reasonable doubt standard, but some have taken issue with a couple of procedural changes in the bill, including one that adds a pretrial hearing to determine whether someone has an intellectual disability that would be mandatory if prosecutors agree and another that establishes a separate process in a trial for determining whether someone is guilty and has an intellectual disability.

Most states have these options, and lawyers say changing the reasonable doubt threshold will not stop intellectually disabled people from receiving the death penalty unless there are also procedural changes.

Separate processes would allow jurors to evaluate whether someone is intellectually disabled without being influenced by the evidence of the crime the person committed, the lawyers argue.

Some prosecutors allege that the bill would make it too difficult to pursue the death penalty and would prevent the practice from being carried out at all. They say that lawmakers should just ban the death penalty if that is their desire, but lawmakers have said that is not their intention.

People would also have the option to receive sentences of life without parole if they are exempt from the death penalty, instead of just a life sentence.

A Senate committee has also tweaked the bill so it would go into effect immediately and apply to all pending cases.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.