Ron DeSantis Plans to Execute an Intellectually Disabled Man This Week

Sign up for the Slatest^[1] to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

On Wednesday, Florida plans to execute David Joseph Pittman. He is to be put to death for his role in a triple homicide that occurred 35 years ago.

Pittman is severely intellectually disabled^[2]. He has had long-standing cognitive impairments, having registered an IQ score of 70 before he turned 18. His lawyers note that he “has trouble reading basic words like ‘dog,’ ” and that he “often needs to have things explained to him repeatedly.”

In addition, Pittman is caught in a legal morass about whether the Supreme Court’s 2002 prohibition on executing the intellectually disabled applies retroactively^[3]. In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled^[4] that it should.

That would have given Pittman a chance to have his case reconsidered. But before that could happen^[5], as the Tampa Bay Times reports, “the Florida Supreme Court—which had since become more conservative with the retirement of three longtime justices regarded as liberal—reversed themselves, declaring that the Atkins ruling did not apply retroactively.”

Pittman’s intellectual disability in itself should be enough to stop the state from executing him. But there are other reasons why Florida should not go forward with its plan, the most important of which is that his death warrant, like others in the Sunshine State, was issued following a process that denied him basic constitutional protections. It was done^[6] in secret by Gov. Ron DeSantis on Aug. 15.

In Florida, the governor is under no obligation to review the legal proceedings in a death penalty case, to make a determination whether the condemned is competent to be executed, or to make sure that death warrants are not being issued in a racially discriminatory way. The Constitution demands more.

Let’s take a look at what Florida law prescribes.

The law sets a 30-day time limit for the governor to issue a warrant for execution “if the executive clemency process has concluded,” from the date the clerk of the court notifies the governor that a death row inmate has exhausted all of his appeals. Crucially, it grants the governor great latitude in selecting to whom he will issue a death warrant.

Florida is an outlier in the way it deals with death warrants.

As the Death Penalty Information Center reports,^[7] “40 active death war­rants have been issued in the United States thus far in 2025—more than a third of them were issued by one indi­vid­ual, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.” Only Pennsylvania gives the governor similar authority to decide who will be selected for execution from among the state’s death row population.

But unlike Florida, which this year has executed more people than any other state, Pennsylvania “has not exe­cut­ed any­one in over 25 years” and has “a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions.”

As the DPIC notes, “At one time, most exe­cu­tion war­rants were issued sole­ly by gov­er­nors. … In recent decades, leg­is­la­tures gen­er­al­ly expand­ed the role of the judi­cia­ry, requir­ing the courts to weigh in before an exe­cu­tion is set.”

Judges are less likely to issue death warrants to score political points or to satisfy prosecutors or the families of murder victims. They under­stand the ins and outs of the cap­i­tal appeal process where “multiple claims can be pend­ing simul­ta­ne­ous­ly in state and fed­er­al court.”

Judges can ensure that the rights of the condemned are protected.

None of that seems high on Gov. DeSantis’ agenda. He has refused^[8] even to disclose who is “warrant-eligible” and what standards he uses in deciding which death warrants to sign.

A look at the death warrants he has issued suggests that he seems much more disposed to move ahead with execution in cases involving Black defendants and white victims.

Examining the Florida Department of Corrections Execution List^[10]: 1976–Present, reveals what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls^[11] “significant and obvious evidence of racial bias and arbitrariness in the warrant selection process.” In the past five years, 94 percent of the state’s executions were carried out in cases involving white victims.

Of the Florida executions that have taken place since 1976 that did not involve a white victim, only two had a white defendant, and not a single case involved a white person killing a Black person.

Whether that disparity is intentional or not, it is constitutionally suspect.

A governor like DeSantis, as professor Lee Kovarsky explains^[12], is unlikely to “sort inmates by death-worthiness—things like offense conduct, blame, or future dangerousness.” That makes it even more troubling that a single person would have the final say in sending someone to their death and be able to make that determination in secret, with no review and no accountability.

Moreover, under current Supreme Court precedent, the issuance of a death warrant plays an important role in determining the kind of legal claims a death row inmate can raise. The American Bar Association observes^[13] that “a state’s decision to set an execution date may significantly alter the framework under which the prisoner’s legal claims are resolved, increasing the difficulty of obtaining substantive relief and decreasing the chances that any court will even hear the merits of the claim.”

“This fact,” the ABA says, “is especially concerning in the context of cases raising innocence claims, where the prisoner’s execution might result in the ultimate injustice.”

One of the worst offenders in using death warrants to alter the legal landscape is Florida.

At the other end of the spectrum, the DPIC notes, is Oregon. That state’s law requires^[14] the trial court that handed down a death sentence to conduct a “death warrant hearing” before an execution can be authorized.

The defendant must be present at the hearing, and they may be represented by counsel. The law also requires the judge conducting the hearing to “determine whether the defendant intends to pursue any challenges to the sentence or conviction.”

Only after doing so may the trial judge issue a death warrant. That warrant is then delivered to “the superintendent of the correctional institution designated by the Director of the Department of Corrections,” where the execution will be carried out.

Finally, Oregon law requires the judge conducting the death warrant hearing to make findings on the record whether “the defendant suffers from a mental condition that prevents the defendant from comprehending the reasons for the sentence of death or its implications.” Such a hearing would have made a big difference in Pittman’s case.

If and when the state kills, every decision, including whether and when to issue a death warrant, must be done publicly, deliberately, and in a way that accords the condemned due process of law.  Unfortunately, David Joseph Pittman, and others executed in Florida, have not been provided such treatment.

Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.