NationStates Jolt Archive

The Supreme Court has ruled against it.
First reaction to the concept by many: utter disgust.
Take a second look: First assume that capital punishment is acceptable. (I'm not saying it is or is not, but for the premises of the question, please do.) Is it really wrong to execute someone who kills other individuals? Isn't it society's right to destroy something that threatens to destroy it? How can we assume someone who is mentally retarded doesn't know that killing is wrong in 100% of cases? Even if they didn't know if they were doing, is it still wrong to execute them (wouldn't not knowing that killing is wrong make them even more dangerous)? Bears or lions don't know that killing/eating people is 'wrong,' yet we still kill them because they pose a threat to us, so does this analogy apply to people?
Just curious to see if I hear the same ungrounded garbage I hear when issues like these are posed to my law class...

Uh... I'm against capital punishment in any cases, but execution of the mentally retarded is even more barbarian and cruel than in most cases.

Even if the mentally retarded knew it was wrong, they don't have the ability to reason fully.

People with mental issues may actually have a better chance at rehabilitation than perfectly sane people who commit capital offenses. The difference is that these people actually have a condition that could possible be improved over time, kind of like juveniles (which is why juveniles generally aren't executed). Average criminals are set in their ways because there is no way to really diagnose what is wrong with them and treat it.

People with mental issues may actually have a better chance at rehabilitation than perfectly sane people who commit capital offenses. The difference is that these people actually have a condition that could possible be improved over time, kind of like juveniles (which is why juveniles generally aren't executed). Average criminals are set in their ways because there is no way to really diagnose what is wrong with them and treat it.

tru dat. Those mentally handicapped can be rehbbed a lot more easily than those who are not.

This thread reminds me of Mad Max.

The Supreme Court has ruled against it.
First reaction to the concept by many: utter disgust.
Take a second look: First assume that capital punishment is acceptable. (I'm not saying it is or is not, but for the premises of the question, please do.) Is it really wrong to execute someone who kills other individuals? Isn't it society's right to destroy something that threatens to destroy it? How can we assume someone who is mentally retarded doesn't know that killing is wrong in 100% of cases? Even if they didn't know if they were doing, is it still wrong to execute them (wouldn't not knowing that killing is wrong make them even more dangerous)? Bears or lions don't know that killing/eating people is 'wrong,' yet we still kill them because they pose a threat to us, so does this analogy apply to people?
Just curious to see if I hear the same ungrounded garbage I hear when issues like these are posed to my law class...
What are the particulars of the case? What is the degree of disability of the individual? A bill of particulars such as: is the defendant a serial killer or was this a single incident would help. Generally speaking I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinious of crimes. A mere Petersen type homocide calls for life without the possibility of parole. A lesser degree would be a heat of the moment homocide with maybe 20 to life with possibility of parole, etc.

I dont believe capital punsihment to be right

What are the particulars of the case? What is the degree of disability of the individual? A bill of particulars such as: is the defendant a serial killer or was this a single incident would help. Generally speaking I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinious of crimes. A mere Petersen type homocide calls for life without the possibility of parole. A lesser degree would be a heat of the moment homocide with maybe 20 to life with possibility of parole, etc.
Well, I'm not talking about any case in particular, but let's assume serial killer, torture mutilation of the victims, person has, say, downs syndrome. Essentially, the question is whether or not those who commit the most heinous of crimes should be held equally under the law, regardless of mental retardation.

I dont believe capital punsihment to be right
That is not the issue.

It could be argued form the logic behind this argument that, if something is dangerous to society, then it cna be destroyed.

Therefore, many people with physical disabilities could also be executed on the basis that their genes are going to dilute the genes of the population, thus causing a higher rate of disability in the future.

More than that, how do you judge where the cut-off lline for disability is?

Furthermore, if you argue that people with mental disabilities may be prone to a lack of judgement, then you are ignoring the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" as well as discounting mental debilitation due to overpowering emotion.

So unless you want a society full of emotionless robots (see 1984) then the theory's logic is flawed.

I'm presuming you don't intend to kill mentally 'healthy' people.

It could be argued form the logic behind this argument that, if something is dangerous to society, then it cna be destroyed.

Therefore, many people with physical disabilities could also be executed on the basis that their genes are going to dilute the genes of the population, thus causing a higher rate of disability in the future.

More than that, how do you judge where the cut-off lline for disability is?

Furthermore, if you argue that people with mental disabilities may be prone to a lack of judgement, then you are ignoring the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" as well as discounting mental debilitation due to overpowering emotion.

So unless you want a society full of emotionless robots (see 1984) then the theory's logic is flawed.

I'm presuming you don't intend to kill mentally 'healthy' people.

question, isn't dyslexia (you can't read right) a mental disability? if so if the Supreme Court ruled that people with mental disabilities can't be executed, then you couldn't sentence a dyslexic person to death interesting thought.

Some of the mentally handicaped deserve death plain and simple. I am going to narrow this down quite a bit and bring it to cereal killers. Aren't all cereal killers metaly handicaped in some way? Who could have a strate mind and kill multiple people? Most of them enjoy what they do or have a sort of bloodlust. They Must kill people. Do these people deserve death or do they get rehabilitation. Now specifically this one person kills hundreds of people. Rapes them after death then hides the body. He jumps from state to state on a killing spree. When caught ADMITS to doing it and then explains why it was good what he was doing and how it wasn't wrong at all. This same person is then put into jail. He escapes when out kills 2 more people then is caught by the end of the day. Escapes A second time and kills more people and is finally executed. Is this wrong a wrongful execution? No. Is he mentally wrong? Yes. This man is Ted Bundy. He deserved death, he got it. Post your arguments.

tru dat. Those mentally handicapped can be rehbbed a lot more easily than those who are not.
huh?

where do you get that idea from?

any evidence or scientific studies that show its easier to rehabilitate the retarded?

cuz i really doubt that it is. so is the reasoning that since they are "simple" minded it should be relatively simple to fix their antisocial behavior, as opposed to a more complex criminal of normal intellect? that's just assinine.



(actually this should be more directed at boyfriendia but... meh, to lazy to really fix it.)

As to those that are retarted. If they killed and knew that they were killing they deserve death. If they killed accidentally they do not. If a person thinks it is ok or good to kill someone on matter there mental state they deserve capital punishment. Punishing people from ignorance such that they did not know they were doing harm to the other person is wrong.

Well, I'm not talking about any case in particular, but let's assume serial killer, torture mutilation of the victims, person has, say, downs syndrome. Essentially, the question is whether or not those who commit the most heinous of crimes should be held equally under the law, regardless of mental retardation.
Since we are hypothetically allowing it to begin with, if you could find such a killer with such a disability then the potential sentence of execution is valid. I would however argue to allow for mitigating conditions and circumstances in the penalty phase as well as judicial discretion with executive oversight and review.

There is a spectrum of disability covered under the layman's term 'mentally retarded' that includes varying degrees of emotional development. The higher end of this range could well be fully culpable while at a lower mark on the range it is ludicrous to hold the individual accountable. Hopefully, somewhere in all this the professionals in the legal profession involved in such a case would make some time in their busy lives for some true justice.

But then the real question is what is the definition of a mentally retarded person? Anybody who kills has deep mental issues. Would someone with mental issues be considered as mentally retarded as it has stuffed up their mind and pathway of thought?
Shouldn't anyone who commits a crime as such have some kind of consequence wether they are mentally retarded or not? It could be rehab, or it could be capital punishment or an amount of jail time or whatever but before the court defines what punishment that person should undergo they need extensive pshycological treatment. Someone could be mentally retarded, but they might actually have an idea of what they are doing. Not everybody is the same.

The Supreme Court has ruled against it.
First reaction to the concept by many: utter disgust.
Take a second look: First assume that capital punishment is acceptable. (I'm not saying it is or is not, but for the premises of the question, please do.) Is it really wrong to execute someone who kills other individuals? Isn't it society's right to destroy something that threatens to destroy it? How can we assume someone who is mentally retarded doesn't know that killing is wrong in 100% of cases? Even if they didn't know if they were doing, is it still wrong to execute them (wouldn't not knowing that killing is wrong make them even more dangerous)? Bears or lions don't know that killing/eating people is 'wrong,' yet we still kill them because they pose a threat to us, so does this analogy apply to people?
Just curious to see if I hear the same ungrounded garbage I hear when issues like these are posed to my law class...
'The Supreme Court has Ruled Against Execution of the Retarded', did that headline escape from The Onion? :p ;)
If we are to assume that the death penalty is acceptable, what premise would this assumed belief be based on? And what exactly is mentally retarded intended to mean (and not mean) in this context?

Most of the Mentally disabled are the happiest people on the plannet, why would we want to exectue them? it would be like killing toddlers. Would you beable to live with yourself for killing a toddler?
I dont think you would, if you could tho, check yourself into a hospital right now.

Some of the mentally handicaped deserve death plain and simple. I am going to narrow this down quite a bit and bring it to cereal killers. Aren't all cereal killers metaly handicaped in some way?
Oh please! Who hasn't noticed that there is something deeply disturbing with Cap'n Crunch, Count Chocula, Lucky The Leprechaun and that Trix rabbit?Who could have a strate mind and kill multiple people? Most of them enjoy what they do or have a sort of bloodlust. They Must kill people. Do these people deserve death or do they get rehabilitation.I would start with a serious cut back on their refined sugar intake then start to address what's left. Now specifically this one person kills hundreds of people. Rapes them after death then hides the body. He jumps from state to state on a killing spree. When caught ADMITS to doing it and then explains why it was good what he was doing and how it wasn't wrong at all. This same person is then put into jail. He escapes when out kills 2 more people then is caught by the end of the day. Escapes A second time and kills more people and is finally executed. Is this wrong a wrongful execution? No. Is he mentally wrong? Yes. This man is Ted Bundy. He deserved death, he got it. Post your arguments.
Uhh . . . he wasn't retarded?

Most of the Mentally disabled are the happiest people on the plannet, why would we want to exectue them?
Depends, particularily in this case on what is meant and what is excluded by the term 'mentally retarded' in this context, and the belief that leads us to assume that capital punishment is acceptable. If the acceptability of capital punishment for instance were premised on our being blood thirsty and saddistic, then we would probably approve of killing mentally retarded people, except where they were so extensively impaired that their ability to suffer was negliable or non-existent, in which case, we wouldnt much be bothered... :rolleyes:

it would be like killing toddlers.
Well if the premise for accepting capital punishment were as discribed above, we probably would want to kill them too...preferably painfully... :eek:

Would you beable to live with yourself for killing a toddler?
Personally no, I dont think I would.

Most of the Mentally disabled are the happiest people on the plannet, why would we want to exectue them? it would be like killing toddlers. Would you beable to live with yourself for killing a toddler?
I dont think you would, if you could tho, check yourself into a hospital right now.
do you actually know many mr people? in my experience they vary in personality as much as "normal" people. some are very amiable and happy, some are sullen and withdrawn . many are emotionally volatile, prone to mode swings and extreme emotional reactions. Also the ones with the mental ability of toddlers are neither the most likely to commit serious crimes nor the most likely punished for them. it is those who are mildly retarded who most often end up in the criminal justice system. more like intellectual preteens in adult bodies, with all the emotional baggage of adults but without the impulse control and intellectual self knowledge to be fully responsible adult citizens of society. they also often have other mental health issues on top of their mr.

But then the real question is what is the definition of a mentally retarded person? Anybody who kills has deep mental issues. Would someone with mental issues be considered as mentally retarded as it has stuffed up their mind and pathway of thought?
Shouldn't anyone who commits a crime as such have some kind of consequence wether they are mentally retarded or not? It could be rehab, or it could be capital punishment or an amount of jail time or whatever but before the court defines what punishment that person should undergo they need extensive pshycological treatment. Someone could be mentally retarded, but they might actually have an idea of what they are doing. Not everybody is the same.
Let's back it up a minute. Mental retardation refers to a specific group of disabilities that are distinct from other mental illnesses. The key is in looking at the root word 'retard'. A noun it's literal definition is, "A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay." Mental retardation refers to various conditions where an individual's mental and emotional growth either develops more slowly or ceases development at an early point. For more information on what it is and what causes there are look here http://www.thearc.org/causes.html.

Mental illness is not retardation but another class entirely. It includes: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Personality Disorders, Dual Diagnosis and Integrated Treatment of Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Disorder, Eating Disorders, Major Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Schizophrenia, Suicide, Tourette's Syndrome, et. al.

Although a person who is retarded is incapable of being diagnosed as having Antisocial Personality Disorder since they would not have developed to the level of maturity of a 15 year old, another person without such a developmental compromise can be so diagnosed.

Depends, particularily in this case on what is meant and what is excluded by the term 'mentally retarded' in this context, and the belief that leads us to assume that capital punishment is acceptable. If the acceptability of capital punishment for instance were premised on our being blood thirsty and saddistic, then we would probably approve of killing mentally retarded people, except where they were so extensively impaired that their ability to suffer was negliable or non-existent, in which case, we wouldnt much be bothered... :rolleyes:


Well if the premise for accepting capital punishment were as discribed above, we probably would want to kill them too...preferably painfully... :eek:


Personally no, I dont think I would.
I should have specified more that I was talking more about people with Downs syndrome

do you actually know many mr people? in my experience they vary in personality as much as "normal" people. some are very amiable and happy, some are sullen and withdrawn . many are emotionally volatile, prone to mode swings and extreme emotional reactions. Also the ones with the mental ability of toddlers are neither the most likely to commit serious crimes nor the most likely punished for them. it is those who are mildly retarded who most often end up in the criminal justice system. more like intellectual preteens in adult bodies, with all the emotional baggage of adults but without the impulse control and intellectual self knowledge to be fully responsible adult citizens of society. they also often have other mental health issues on top of their mr.
Very astutely examined and very well stated. I have had opportunity to work with people in the milder range of MR and the range of any given individual may fluctuate wildly, especially when stressors are involved. I am closely acquainted with one 14 yo male who experiences a range of behaviors and issues. Could he, in a moment of time, 'lose it' and violently lash out resulting in a death? If pushed hard enough, perhaps. Would he be as responsible as any other 14 yo male? No. He lacks the intrapersonal skill development and probably always will.

I should have specified more that I was talking more about people with Downs syndrome
Aha, none the less, we'd still need to know what premise was accepted or believed in order for us to assume that capital punishment was acceptable (as per the thread starters instructions)....

If the premise which we assume in order to arrive at the assumption that capital punishment is acceptable, is that we are blood thirsty and saddistic, then yes we would accept and support the execution of people with Downs syndrome....and also the Tooth-fairy and basket loads of kittens and puppies (in the same basket for extra fun).... ;)

I should have specified more that I was talking more about people with Downs syndrome
Down's Syndrome in itself is not narrowly definded enough. The range of retardation can run from very mild to very severe. The question remain unchanged, "does the individual have the capacity to make appropriate judgements and exercise sufficient self control?" It is essentially the same question asked of any mentally ill person or diminished capacity defense. At it's heart is the question, "Can the individual be held accountable/"

Aha, none the less, we'd still need to know what premise was accepted or believed in order for us to assume that capital punishment was acceptable (as per the thread starters instructions)....

If the premise which we assume in order to arrive at the assumption that capital punishment is acceptable, is that we are blood thirsty and saddistic, then yes we would accept and support the execution of people with Downs syndrome....and also the Tooth-fairy and basket loads of kittens and puppies (in the same basket for extra fun).... ;)
Good Gravy Peeps! This is an intellectual exercise with certain givens - we are not setting public policy! Your stance is like that of the student whose assignment was to write a paper on why the Iraq war was justifiable but instead chose to write a first rate paper on why the war was unjustified. He got a sustainable 'F' because he did not do the assignment.

For the record, I am generally disposed against the death penalty. It is too final and the courts are too human.

Honestly how many of these people (http://home.kc.rr.com/bsteggeman1/smilies/retards.jpg) do you see out in the streets murdering people. This whole issue is way over blown. Just let the retards mop the floors and take out the trash from your local burger-joint.

As long as you know right from wrong, and are over 7 years old you should be able to be executed.

Very astutely examined and very well stated. I have had opportunity to work with people in the milder range of MR and the range of any given individual may fluctuate wildly, especially when stressors are involved. I am closely acquainted with one 14 yo male who experiences a range of behaviors and issues. Could he, in a moment of time, 'lose it' and violently lash out resulting in a death? If pushed hard enough, perhaps. Would he be as responsible as any other 14 yo male? No. He lacks the intrapersonal skill development and probably always will.


i think the issue of knowing right from wrong is over rated as a determining criteria for legal accountability. the 14 year old you discribe is a perfect example of the problem. he might "lose it" and be overcome with emotion and react violently, a response he may well not be competent to control in all situations. after the fact however he probably would be able to understand that his actions were wrong, and therefore legal responsible for his actions. this isn't just true of mr but also people with mental illness. they may be able(at least when lucid) to understand right from wrong, but that doesn't mean they have the same ability to control their behavior that a mentally healthy adult does.

When I saw the title of this thread, I assumed it was about eugenics (The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding). Not sure what that says about me.
Firstly, I believe that the death penalty *is* right, in certain cases. However, I also believe that it is used far too often. There can be far worse punishments than death - recently, some guy in America, guilty of multiple rape, has been spared the death penalty, and instead has been castrated. Personally, I've thought that this would be a better punishment for rapists for a long time.
Executing a mentally retarded person is a negative step for society, whatever their crime. If they don't understand that what they've done was wrong, then lock them up in a secure institution.
Maybe a way of avoiding this problem is by adoption of eugenics in a mild form. Yes, I know that the subject of eugenics is generally viewed as morally reprehensible, and I'm aware that it was a branch of science pursued by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s (in the quest for the supposed Aryan 'master race'). But consider it - mental retardation is caused by mutations in genes/chromosomes/whatever. By eliminating these mutations from humanity, less and less people will suffer from mental retardation (and hereditary diseases). Surely this is only beneficial to the human race?

And no, I haven't just put that in to try and shock people.

Good Gravy Peeps! This is an intellectual exercise with certain givens - we are not setting public policy! Your stance is like that of the student whose assignment was to write a paper on why the Iraq war was justifiable but instead chose to write a first rate paper on why the war was unjustified. He got a sustainable 'F' because he did not do the assignment.

For the record, I am generally disposed against the death penalty. It is too final and the courts are too human.
Well I know we are doing the exercise with a given, that given is that the death penalty is premised as acceptable. Granted my example was somewhat over the top, but it was intended to highlight a valid point. The answer is different depending on why you accept the death penalty. For instance executing people because we want to deter others, might have different implications to executing people because we want to make them suffer as they have made other's suffer (ie an eye for an eye vs general deterence)...

Well I know we are doing the exercise with a given, that given is that the death penalty is premised as acceptable. Granted my example was somewhat over the top, but it was intended to highlight a valid point. The answer is different depending on why you accept the death penalty. For instance executing people because we want to deter others, might have different implications to executing people because we want to make them suffer as they have made other's suffer (ie an eye for an eye vs general deterence)...
Said in that tone, we have more in common than not. Personally I find it highly unlikely that you would find a case where a retarded individual would have the needed capacity to warrant capital punishment but it is my view that one should never say never. The longer I live the more I see the improbable become fact.

Said in that tone, we have more in common than not. Personally I find it highly unlikely that you would find a case where a retarded individual would have the needed capacity to warrant capital punishment but it is my view that one should never say never. The longer I live the more I see the improbable become fact.
Well it's usually not my policy to agree with just any lunatic, but I guess the slap happy variety must be legit... ;) ...

...that or you're just making sense because you're having an 'off-day'... :p :D

Honestly how many of these people do you see out in the streets murdering people. This whole issue is way over blown. Just let the retards mop the floors and take out the trash from your local burger-joint.

As long as you know right from wrong, and are over 7 years old you should be able to be executed.


Very astutely examined and very well stated. I have had opportunity to work with people in the milder range of MR and the range of any given individual may fluctuate wildly, especially when stressors are involved. I am closely acquainted with one 14 yo male who experiences a range of behaviors and issues. Could he, in a moment of time, 'lose it' and violently lash out resulting in a death? If pushed hard enough, perhaps. Would he be as responsible as any other 14 yo male? No. He lacks the intrapersonal skill development and probably always will.
i think the issue of knowing right from wrong is over rated as a determining criteria for legal accountability. the 14 year old you discribe is a perfect example of the problem. he might "lose it" and be overcome with emotion and react violently, a response he may well not be competent to control in all situations. after the fact however he probably would be able to understand that his actions were wrong, and therefore legal responsible for his actions. this isn't just true of mr but also people with mental illness. they may be able (at least when lucid) to understand right from wrong, but that doesn't mean they have the same ability to control their behavior that a mentally healthy adult does.
I'll take it your response was a twofer.

We are in agreement excepting the bolded portion of your post above. Capacity at the time of the commission of the murder is what is putative, not post facto awareness or even the presence of remorse. That of itself is not the sole basis. The condition must be beyond the control of the individual charged. Actions performed while intoxicated are not excusable since the creation of that condition was within the control of the individual.

Well it's usually not my policy to agree with just any lunatic, but I guess the slap happy variety must be legit... ;) ...

...that or you're just making sense because you're having an 'off-day'... :p :D

Yeah, those damn meds! :p

It is good to be flexible.

"If you bend, you need not break" - Lao Tsu