COURTS' ELUSIVE SEARCH FOR THE MEANING OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY FOR EVALUATING ATKINS CLAIMS.

When the Supreme Court's 2002 Atkins decision held that it was unconstitutional to execute defendants with intellectual disability, the ruling was heralded as an important protection for these vulnerable defendants. However, courts have been faced with a number of conceptual and procedural issues because determining who has an intellectual disability has remained elusive, especially for defendants whose intellectual disability is considered to be "borderline" (i.e., IQs within the 65-75 range). This Article examines some of these issues from three states (Texas, Florida, and Alabama). Because the meaning of intellectual disability and attempts to measure it have been elusive, the courts' search for a particular objective measure for determining who should be exempt under Atkins will continue to result in arbitrary outcomes. This Article proposes that the focus should shift to a broader conceptualization of intellectual disability embodied within a social construction model to include examining the social context and its relationship to how an individual functions and reasons. Only then can a greater number of defendants whofunction along the borders of "intelligence" benefit from the Supreme Court's Atkins ruling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]