Are you brainy enough to be killed?

[MargeB]

Very disturbing story here .

I don't agree with the death penalty anyway, but if it's to be used, should it be used on the mentally retarded if they suddenly become brainy enough? 

[ll_billym]

The problem is is that you have to have a cut off point where people are deemed not to be responsible for their actions otherwise many mentally retarded people would be sentenced to death or prison sentences rather than being put in a mental institution.  As with every other cut off point there will be cases, like this one, that are borderline and there is a big to do about what should or should not be done.

My view on this particular case is that if the chap was deemed not to be responsible for his actions at the time he did the crime(s) then the fact that he is "cleverer" now should have no bearing on it.

[MargeB]

Do you think his inclination to kill people left him  when his retardation left him? Otherwise I figure he may be still a murderer, albeit a less retarded one.

[ll_billym]

No, I don't think that 2 more IQ points will change his desire to kill people, in fact I don't think that it makes any difference at all to him or the case.  He was deemed to be retarded when he did the crime therefore he should not be sentenced to death now simply because he is not deemed to be retarded any more.

By the way I disagree with many aspects of this case but I am only arguing the specific point in that the case should be decided on his mental state when he did the crimes, not his mental state now.

[MargeB]

ok, I see where you're coming from.

I guess some may argue that one of the main reasons for executing killers is so that they don't kill again. If its argued that he was mentally retarded at the time, and killed because of this, but is not mentally retarded now, so will not kill again, then he is no longer a risk and should not be executed.

If, on the other hand, his crime had nothing to do with his retardation, it should not matter if his IQ improved, he's still a risk and should be executed.

[Zen]

Clever enough to stand for President then !!!

[metagirl]

This, I believe, is a reason why the death penalty should be abolished. A test result that says your Retarded one year and just slightly dumb a few years later should be deemed "unsafe" and ruling should be in the defendant's favour. Unfortunately, this is America we are talking about and we (i'm american) are a less lenient society.

MargeB - claiming a criminal is Retarded while he committed his crime does not imply that being retarded is somehow related to his criminality, and so once someone is no longer retarded they are less inclined to commit crime. Just that killing someone who is found to be retarded (regardless of his crime) would be inhumane.

And what about child-killers? On the same grounds, should they be executed once they reach adult age?  

[MargeB]

Why is killing a retarded person inhumane but killing a non retarded person humane?

[metagirl]

margeb-

to me, both are inhumane. but there are different standards of "humanity" applied in the US criminal justice system.

[MargeB]

Yeah, it was a dig at them, not at you, beg your pardon.

[birdy72]

I don't get it - whether he is deemed to be less 'retarded' then or now has no bearing on the fact that he had the mental clarity to murder somebody, after forcing them to withdraw money and taking them to an isolated spot! IQ tests are controversial because 'intelligence' is difficult to measure, and if you have ever taken a test it deals with a lot of left/right brain utilisation and logical and lateral posers as well as things like grammar - if the perpetrator did badly in the test it still doesn't mean he didn't know the ramifications of the murder; and who's to prove he didn't flunk the test on purpose - he may certainly be more than clever enough to mislead intentionally. I'm not sure on the death penalty, but this guy is a repeat offender and at the very least needs to be locked away for good.