Low IQ Exempts Murderers from Execution
False Assumption: Murderers scoring below an IQ cutoff of 65 to 75 suffer intellectual disability that precludes the death penalty, overriding objective test scores with clinical judgment.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing intellectually disabled murderers violated the Eighth Amendment. The decision set an IQ cutoff around 70 as a key indicator of such disability, though it allowed for clinical judgment to override test scores in borderline cases. States soon adopted similar guidelines, emphasizing adaptive functioning and expert assessments alongside raw IQ data. This framework aimed to protect the truly impaired, but it opened doors for defense teams to argue diminished capacity in appeals.
Post-Atkins, death row inmates began showing sharp IQ drops, sometimes by 40 points, without clear medical explanations. Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted in 1997 of torturing and murdering a woman, saw his borderline scores reinterpreted through clinical lenses; after 28 years on death row, he avoided execution in a 2025 ruling. Similarly, Joseph Clinton Smith, sentenced in 1998 for beating a robbery victim to death, benefited from debates over his IQ tests. Critics noted these declines often aligned with legal incentives, leading to inconsistent outcomes across cases.
The approach remains hotly debated. Mounting evidence challenges the reliability of overriding objective scores with subjective judgments, as psychometricians like Arthur Jensen warned in 2002 that inmates might manipulate tests. Russell Warne, writing in 2025, argued such patterns suggest strategic underperformance. Yet supporters maintain clinical flexibility prevents injustices, keeping the consensus divided among experts in psychology and criminal justice.
People Involved
- Joseph Clinton Smith faced conviction in 1998 for beating robbery victim Durk Van Dam to death with a hammer in Alabama. He scored between 72 and 78 on five IQ tests, including pre-conviction results of 75 and 74, which suggested he was either too honest or too stupid to fake lower scores for a death penalty exemption. [1] Critics argue this case highlights manipulation risks.
- Russell Warne, an IQ expert, pointed out in The American Spectator that death row prisoners often drop up to 40 IQ points after conviction, likely due to lawyer coaching, serving as a warning against such tactics. [1]
- Arthur Jensen, a noted psychometrician, told Steve Sailer in 2002 that the Atkins ruling would end up executing only those killers too dim to deliberately fail IQ tests. [1]
- In a similar vein, Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted in 1997 for a torture-murder, escaped execution when courts cited his borderline IQ scores, all above 70, to spare him. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (4)
“Way back in 1998, Joseph Clinton Smith (a white man) was convicted in Alabama of beating a robbery victim to death with a hammer, carpenter Durk Van Dam.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“I.Q. expert Russell Warne writes in The American Spectator: ... The most likely explanation is that they are being coached by their lawyers to fail the tests so that it is easier to argue that the prisoner has an intellectual disability that precludes execution.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“One intelligence expert worried that we will end up executing only those killers “too stupid to realize that they ought to flunk their IQ test.””— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama’s Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
Organizations Involved
The Supreme Court advanced the idea in its 2002 Atkins decision, mandating that states set IQ cutoffs between 65 and 75 to exempt those deemed intellectually disabled from the death penalty. [1] The American Psychological Association backed this by submitting an amicus brief that pushed for holistic clinical judgment over strict IQ scores in capital cases. [1] Alabama courts adopted IQ 70 as the minimum for execution eligibility, placing Joseph Clinton Smith's scores of 72 to 78 above the line. [1] The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinforced this for Joseph Clifton Smith by considering cumulative IQ evidence and adaptive deficits to overturn his death sentence. [2] The U.S. Supreme Court stepped in with Hamm v. Smith to examine these holistic IQ methods, showing selective trust in IQ science for exemptions. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (5)
“Back in the 2002 Atkins decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states must pick an IQ score from 65 to 75 and not assign the death penalty to anybody who scored below it.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“an amicus brief from the American Psychological Association and other organizations urges the use of holistic clinical judgment in deciding whether a particular inmate has an intellectual disability.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“Alabama went with the middle of the road IQ score of 70 as the minimum for the death penalty.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith’s death sentence.”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
“On Wednesday, the Supreme Court in Hamm v. Smith will consider the case of torture-murderer Joseph Clifton Smith”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
The Foundation
The 2002 Atkins decision rested on IQ scores from 65 to 75 as markers of intellectual disability that barred execution. This fostered beliefs in adjustable test declines and the value of clinical judgment, even as pre-crime scores, free from coaching incentives, appeared more trustworthy. [1] After Atkins, prisoners often showed IQ drops of up to 40 points without clear medical reasons, which some viewed as disability progression but critics saw as coaching effects; Joseph Clinton Smith's stable scores across a narrow six-point range challenged this pattern. [1] The Atkins v. Virginia ruling set IQ below 70 as a key threshold for disability exemptions, treating IQ tests as solid science in death penalty contexts and encouraging sub-beliefs like error margins and holistic reviews of scores plus adaptive behaviors. [2] Courts noted the standard error of measurement at plus or minus three points, letting them adjust a 72 down to 69 for disability rulings. [2] Growing questions surround whether these foundations hold up against evidence of manipulation.
▶ Supporting Quotes (4)
“Back in the 2002 Atkins decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states must pick an IQ score from 65 to 75 and not assign the death penalty to anybody who scored below it.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“Most of the post-Atkins prisoners with multiple IQ scores show a steady decline — up to 40 points! — over the years. This is a level of decline generally only seen in dementia patients or people with severe brain damage, and yet these prisoners, usually with no new medical conditions, show a precipitous drop in IQ.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“Supreme Court ruled in its 2002’s Atkins v. Virginia decision in effect banning states from executing first degree murderers with IQs below 70”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
“A federal judge noted that Smith’s score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points.”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
How It Spread
Liberal views spread skepticism of IQ testing in most areas but embraced it to shield murderers from the death penalty, favoring subjective clinical assessments instead. [1] Courts built on this through precedents that permitted scores near 70 to qualify for exemptions when paired with testimony on adaptive deficits. [2] This approach gained traction in legal circles, though critics argue it invites inconsistency and abuse.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“I.Q. testing gets little respect from liberal conventional wisdom, except when it can be used to help a murderer escape the death penalty.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of “adaptive deficits.””— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
Resulting Policies
In 2002, the Supreme Court's Atkins v. Virginia decision compelled states to implement IQ cutoffs of 65 to 75 for exempting the intellectually disabled from execution; Alabama chose 70 as its benchmark. [1] The ruling defined intellectual disability in part by IQ under 70, banning executions for those who met it. States like Alabama followed suit, with later decisions in 2014 and 2017 allowing scores near 70 to count if supported by other evidence. [2] In Hamm v. Smith, federal courts used a holistic lens on multiple IQ scores around 70, factoring in error margins and adaptive deficits to spare Joseph Clifton Smith from death. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“Back in the 2002 Atkins decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states must pick an IQ score from 65 to 75 and not assign the death penalty to anybody who scored below it. Alabama went with the middle of the road IQ score of 70 as the minimum for the death penalty.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment.”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
“A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony.”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
Harm Caused
Prioritizing clinical judgment over raw IQ scores led to uneven death penalty outcomes and opened doors for coached low scores, potentially letting non-disabled killers avoid execution. [1] Joseph Clifton Smith spent 28 years on death row for a brutal hammer murder tied to petty theft, only to evade the penalty through an IQ-based ruling. [2] Mounting evidence challenges whether such harms outweigh the intended protections, as debates continue.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“While holistic clinical judgment allows for more nuance and the consideration of unique individual characteristics, in this context it has resulted in inconsistent decisions.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case.”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
Downfall
Joseph Clinton Smith's IQ results held steady at 72 to 78 over five tests, including pre-crime scores of 75 and 74 taken without faking incentives, which highlighted coaching in other cases and boosted arguments for relying on objective pre-crime data. [1] Patterns emerged in capital appeals where IQ drops appeared only after Atkins, suggesting lawyer guidance as the culprit and weakening claims for clinical superiority. [1] The Supreme Court vacated the 11th Circuit's ruling in Hamm v. Smith over unclear IQ handling, calling for more precision and sparking Alabama's second appeal. [2] Critics argue these developments expose flaws in the assumption, though the matter remains contested.
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“IQ scores are the most objective evidence available regarding a person’s mental competence. This is especially true when the IQ test was administered before a crime occurred — as happened twice for Smith (IQs of 75 and 74) — when there is little motivation to perform poorly on the test.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“The most likely explanation is that they are being coached by their lawyers to fail the tests so that it is easier to argue that the prisoner has an intellectual disability that precludes execution. This obvious confounding factor complicates efforts to apply theoretical rules to the practical question of combining IQ scores in death row appeals.”— Supreme Court Debates If Hammer-Murderer Is Too Stupid to Throw His IQ Tests
“In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit’s decision, saying that the lower court’s evaluation of Smith’s IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification.”— Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Science
Sources
- [1]
-
[2]
Judges' Strange New Respect for I.Q. Sciencereputable_journalism