Lawyers spar over whether death row inmate is retarded; case led to Supreme Court decision:
"Atkins was 18 when he and William Jones killed Airman 1st Class Eric Nesbitt, 21, for beer money. Nesbitt was abducted outside a convenience store, forced to withdraw money from an automated teller machine and driven to a desolate road, where he was shot eight times.
Prosecutors said Atkins was the triggerman. A plea agreement was reached with Jones, who testified against Atkins and received a life sentence.
Three years ago, Supreme Court justices sided with Atkins' lawyers in ruling that execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel, but did not decide whether Atkins has the disability."
----
Yes, killing someone is stupid. Yes, this guy is very stupid. But basing retardedness on IQ is pretty stupid too. Why not apply insanity to the same test, after all stupid people do things that those of normal or higher intelligence consider insane... like killing someone.
Isn't Hawking retarded? But isn't he also like the smartest person on Earth right now? Oh, 'mentally' retarded... hmm, little bit different. Oh it makes sense now, I see the light. Mentally retarded is the same thing as "stupid." So the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court is that it is cruel to execute someone very stupid. Why? In this case, the guy was smart enough to robbing someone is wrong, smart enough to know that shooting someone would kill them, smart enough to wait until in a desolate place to start shooting the victim.
You know, the only way this guy should be applicable to the law (not be executed) is if he was just doing what his partner was telling him to do. So that if he was an active participant, not just a tool, then he is smart enough to be executed without the execution being cruel.
Forget this bright line IQ test, take the time to look at each case individually and have a jury make the determination whether the guy is in fact an active participant or if he was under a false impression or other manipulation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
We need to make the punishment fit the crime and then maybe, just maybe, people might have some sense knocked into them. Prison needs to be a place you do not want to go. Spankings and torture should be the day to day; not working out,reading, eating and sleeping. Hell sounds better than my day to day lol.
Unfortunately there are people who really are too dumb to understand that there are consequences for their actions. I've never met someone that dumb, haven't seen one on TV or anything, but I as I understand it, that's a simplified foundation for why it is cruel or unusual punishment to sentence these types to death.
So how do you punish these people? They don't know what they did wrong, supposedly. Wouldn't locking them up be cruel and unusual too, even without the spanking and torture? Should we give dumb people free passes to kill whomever they please?
And to top this all off, the "test" of whether you qualify is if you're at or below your state's predetermined IQ percentage. What does that have to do with water in China? I don't think a stated IQ is the proper measure, that's a pretty simple "solution" to a complicated problem.
It would be nice if it was that simple, but I think the guy in this article knew he was doing wrong when he committed murder, I don't think they happened to drive the guy to the woods and suddenly decided to kill him there. It was deliberate and cold, and even if his IQ is less than 70, he still knew enough about what he was doing for a judge or jury to at least have the option of sentencing him to death based on the facts and circumstances of what transpired.
Post a Comment