John Steinbeck gave the literary world a lovable simpleton in
Lennie Small, the fulcrum of the Nobel Prize winner's classic 1937
novella "Of Mice and Men." Lennie was meant to be an archetype: the
lumbering, guileless halfwit whose innocence was matched only by his
intense loyalty and unmanageable physical strength.
He is one of Steinbeck's simplest characters, eliciting sympathy as
few in the American literary oeuvre ever do. And perhaps it's this
empathy that keeps "Of Mice and Men" on the syllabi of so many high
school English courses, 75 years after its publication.
Now the character has been brought to the fore again, providing the baseline comparison that sent a mentally retarded
convict named Marvin Wilson
to his death in Texas Tuesday night. Wilson, 54, was pronounced dead at
6:27 p.m., 14 minutes after his lethal injection began at the state
prison in Huntsville,
NBC reported.
Lennie Small was never meant to set the legal definition of "mental
retardation," the late novelist's son, Thomas Steinbeck, argues.
A snafu in a previous Supreme Court ruling allowed Wilson to be sent
to his death, as his lawyers' petition for a stay of execution was
ignored. And the whole ordeal bizarrely hinges upon what Steinbeck
argues is a misguided and inaccurate interpretation of a fictional
character.
"Prior to reading about Mr. Wilson's case, I had no idea that the
great state of Texas would use a fictional character that my father
created to make a point about human loyalty and dedication, i.e., Lennie
Small from '
Of Mice and Men,' as a benchmark to identify
whether defendants with intellectual disability should live or die,"
Thomas Steinbeck said in a statement.
Wilson's attorneys asked the high court to put a stay of execution
until Texas' controversial means of testing mental disabilities is
properly challenged.
Wilson was convicted in 1992 of murdering a police drug
informant. During his stint in prison, he was subjected to a battery of
tests to determine the borders of his mental limitations, including a
2004 report by Donald Trahan, a neuropsychologist from the Center for Behavioral Studies in Texas.
Wilson's IQ of 61 put him far below normal, with the literacy level
of a 7-year-old. He could not dress himself properly, match his socks,
climb a ladder or mow a lawn.
"It is evident that the deficiencies in general intelligence and
adaptive behavior have been present since early childhood and well
before the age of 18," Trahan wrote. "My evaluation of Mr. Marvin Lee
Wilson reveals that he does meet the criteria for a diagnosis of mild
mental retardation."
The test results came two years after the Supreme Court ruled the
execution of mentally retarded convicts was a breach of the
Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on excessive punishment in
Atkins v. Virginia.
"The mentally retarded should be categorically excluded from
execution," the court wrote in its decision, due to "their disabilities
in areas of reasoning, judgment and control of their impulses."
The decision did not specify a definition for mental retardation, allowing states to set their own guidelines.
Texas, a state so execution-happy it accounts for one-third of the
nation's trips to death row, took a back door to letting the mentally
retarded continue to face the death penalty.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals set a threshold that ignores
recognized medical testing while daring the Supreme Court to intervene.
It directly rebuked the Atkins decision in a 2004
ruling,
decrying the Supreme Court's "categorical rule making such offenders
ineligible for the death penalty," going so far as to deny the existence
of "a 'mental retardation' bright-line exemption."
Instead, it concocted seven criteria called "Briseno factors," which were based upon the character Lennie Small.
"Most Texas citizens would agree that Steinbeck's Lennie should, by
virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt
from execution," the decision read. "But does a consensus of Texas
citizens agree that all persons who might legitimately qualify for
assistance under the social services definition of mental retardation be
exempt from an otherwise constitutional penalty?"
In short, Texas' criteria allow the mentally retarded to remain on
death row if a judge determines the crime was complex enough to require
forethought, planning and intricate execution. Wilson met all the
criteria. But it's the bit alluding to Lennie Small that upsets the
Steinbecks.
"My father was a highly gifted writer who won the Nobel Prize for his
ability to create art about the depth of the human experience and
condition. His work was certainly not meant to be scientific, and the
character of Lennie was never intended to be used to diagnose a medical
condition like intellectual disability," Thomas Steinbeck said.
"I find the whole premise to be insulting, outrageous, ridiculous and
profoundly tragic. I am certain that if my father, John Steinbeck, were
here, he would be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this
way."
The same 2004 ruling Texas used against Wilson has been the
foundation of at least 10 mental retardation claims being rejected in
other death penalty cases. It has been echoed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which claims mental retardation cases are
not grounds for staying executions.
Several factors could have changed Wilson's fate. The Supreme Court
could have offered a stay of execution, but did not. Texas Gov. Rick
Perry also could have intervened, but he vetoed a bill that would have
banned the execution of mentally retarded inmates in 2009.
Arguably the strangest part of the ordeal remains Wilson's very real
similarities to Lennie Small, particularly in the facts his crime. Like
Lennie, Wilson was one half of a duo. It left him susceptible to the
direction of his accomplice. The main witness against Wilson was the
accomplice's wife, who testified he admitted to the crime.
Steinbeck's own novel eerily describes Wilson's character -- and
possibly Texas' obstinacy. A longer bit of dialogue spoken by Crooks, an
ancillary character, reads, "He got nothing to tell him what's so an'
what ain't so. Maybe if he sees somethin', he don't know whether it's
right or not. He can't turn to some other guy and ast him if he sees it
too. He can't tell. He got nothing to measure by."
