Posted on 06/20/2002 7:39:02 AM PDT by GeneD
Edited on 07/19/2004 2:10:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Washington, June 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Constitution bars executions of mentally retarded killers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, reversing a decision it made 13 years ago and ending a practice permitted in 20 states.
The 6-3 decision, invoking the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, said ``evolving standards of decency'' preclude sentencing the retarded to death. The ruling came in the case of a Virginia man convicted of a 1996 murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at quote.bloomberg.com ...
No, it's not helpful.
Haven't you heard that IQ tests are culturally biased?
Are you some kind of Frenchy?
Add to it deficating in your pants and they just might put you in a group home.
Within months, not years, you can be back out murdering again.
Can't speak for the Freeper in question, but I don't think he is discriminating by race. Rather, he is implying we have a whole class or what have you of people in the country that have become too accustomed to riding in the wagon and watching (or being on) Jerry Springer.
At an IQ of less than 70 it is unlikley that the accused can participate effectively in his own defense. That was the constitutional issue that should have been raised in Rector's case by his public defender at trial. It wasn't. This allowed the Supreme Court to decided Rector's case on the procedural grounds of refusing to consider on appeal an issue that had not been raised during the trial. If I recall, the Supreme Court did not address the substantive issue of the constitutionality of executing a mental vegetable with human DNA when deciding Rector's case 13 years ago.
Who is "we," exactly? You are Canadian, yes? I take it you mean humans in general?
Agreed except for one point. It should be mental incomprehension not retardation that should be the mitigation factor.
The "cultural bias" would tend to lower scores, which would be helpful to their client.
They will sue, however, if their client scores a 71, saying that the cutoff line is arbitrary and capricious. They'll certainly find some grounds on which to appeal; that's what they're paid to do.
But, without a guideline from the Supreme Court, every defendant might raise the Retard Defense.
There is at least an argument for using "evolving standards of decency" in interpreting the 8th Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." "Unusual" at least arguably suggests looking at today's common practices, rather than those of the time the amendment was ratified. For example, branding the convict with a hot iron was the "usual" punishment for shoplifting in 1789, but I think most people today would regard that as excessive.
Actually, they are the same to a certain extent. A moron has an IQ of 70. A mentally retarded person has an IQ of 70. One term is not politically correct; the other is not.
Bingo. The illogic of this decision is breathtaking. If some people are too mentally deficient to form criminal intent, why are they subject to prosecution and imprisonment? If someone cannot understand why he is being executed, how can he understand the cause of his lifelong confinement in a cell?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.