|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 6, 2007 15:29:43 GMT -6
There have been some executions stayed so the inmate could be evulated for mental retardation. I never hear how these cases are going. I wonder how long does it take to prove or disprove the retard claim?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 6, 2007 15:43:14 GMT -6
I'm not 100% sure myself but i think there is alot of evaluations by different people. I know in Canada that if proven to be mentally insane is no picnic. The person is in the bottom of the prison and given a handful of drugs everyday to sedate them. But it is not a short process, i think it could take about a week or so depending on the perosn and circumstances. Hope this helps. There have been some executions stayed so the inmate could be evulated for mental retardation. I never hear how these cases are going. I wonder how long does it take to prove or disprove the retard claim?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 17:00:47 GMT -6
Surely they would have some sought of record of illness?? Doctors/hospital records etc
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Sept 6, 2007 17:03:28 GMT -6
Doesn't MD have to have manifested in childhood to be considered?
|
|
|
Post by arkansasboy2007 on Sept 6, 2007 17:47:22 GMT -6
I'm not 100% sure myself but i think there is alot of evaluations by different people. I know in Canada that if proven to be mentally insane is no picnic. The person is in the bottom of the prison and given a handful of drugs everyday to sedate them. But it is not a short process, i think it could take about a week or so depending on the perosn and circumstances. Hope this helps. There have been some executions stayed so the inmate could be evulated for mental retardation. I never hear how these cases are going. I wonder how long does it take to prove or disprove the retard claim? Actually for an example Stormy, sometimes it can take three years. Elkie Lee Taylor who lost his retardation challenge claim last month was suppose have been executed in 2004 before receiving a stay, so it took them three years to resolve his claim. Hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 6, 2007 18:08:49 GMT -6
There have been some executions stayed so the inmate could be evulated for mental retardation. I never hear how these cases are going. I wonder how long does it take to prove or disprove the retard claim? It depends on each state's procedure for dealing with these MR issues at post conviction stages. And then it depends on the appeal of the issue. So it could take anywhere from a couple of years to many. Unfortunately. I'll give you the example of how it works in Georgia: an inmate makes a claim that they're mentally retarded. First, there's a fact finding expedition and skeletal hearing at the habeas level. If the habeas judge determines that they've made a prima facie case for mental retardation, then the case gets sent back to the county of conviction, where a whole trial is held on the issue. But before the trial is held, there's even more fact finding, more evaluations, etc etc. then there's the trial, and the appeal. Once all that is done, it's back to the habeas court to pick up where they left off prior to MR being claimed. So it takes years in Georgia if they make the prima facie case at the habeas level.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 6, 2007 18:09:49 GMT -6
Surely they would have some sought of record of illness?? Doctors/hospital records etc This is mental retardation, not illness. The relevant records are school and IQ records, as well as work records and other records that show their ability/inability to function in normal life settings. Usually not hospital records.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 6, 2007 18:11:07 GMT -6
Doesn't MD have to have manifested in childhood to be considered? Yes. I believe all states who have adopted procedures (and I think Texas STILL hasn't adopted procedures) for determining MR use the DSM definition (loosly summarized): significantly subaverage intelligence and deficits in adaptive functioning with onset prior to age 18.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 18:28:12 GMT -6
There have been some executions stayed so the inmate could be evulated for mental retardation. I never hear how these cases are going. I wonder how long does it take to prove or disprove the retard claim? james clark, who murdered Cari Crews and Jesus Garza, had been scheduled for execution in April 2004. He got a stay for MR claim. He lost. He was finally executed April 2007. edit: this was in Texas
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 6, 2007 18:31:11 GMT -6
There have been some executions stayed so the inmate could be evulated for mental retardation. I never hear how these cases are going. I wonder how long does it take to prove or disprove the retard claim? james clark, who murdered Cari Crews and Jesus Garza, had been scheduled for execution in April 2004. He got a stay for MR claim. He lost. He was finally executed April 2007. edit: this was in Texas Let me add that although Texas has yet to adopt procedures, that doesn't mean they can't do the MR determination. It's just that there is no uniform way of handling them across the state right now. So each jursidication sorta has to fend for themselves and figure out a "right" way that they hope will be upheld on appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Sept 6, 2007 18:41:05 GMT -6
james clark, who murdered Cari Crews and Jesus Garza, had been scheduled for execution in April 2004. He got a stay for MR claim. He lost. He was finally executed April 2007. edit: this was in Texas Let me add that although Texas has yet to adopt procedures, that doesn't mean they can't do the MR determination. It's just that there is no uniform way of handling them across the state right now. So each jursidication sorta has to fend for themselves and figure out a "right" way that they hope will be upheld on appeal. Apparently we are operating under TCCA guidelines issued in 2004. DEATH PENALTY USA (Texas): James Lee Clark (m), white, aged 38 James Clark is scheduled to be executed in Texas on 11 April 2007. He was sentenced to death in May 1994 for the rape and murder of 17-year-old Shari Catherine Crews in June 1993. James Clark’s clemency petition seeks commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment on the grounds that he has mental retardation. In 2002, in Atkins v Virginia, the US Supreme Court outlawed the execution of people with retardation. The Court did not define retardation, although it pointed to the definition used by the American Association of Mental Retardation (AAMR). Under such a definition, mental retardation is a disability, manifested before the age of 18, characterized by significantly sub-average intellectual functioning (generally indicated by an IQ of less than 70) accompanied by limitations in two or more adaptive skill areas such as communication, self-care, work, and functioning in the community. The Supreme Court noted that “not all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus.” The Court left it up to individual states to develop “appropriate ways” to comply with the ruling. This opened the door to further inconsistency in the application of the death penalty in the USA. In an assessment in April 2003, clinical psychologist Dr George Denkowski, hired by the state, concluded that James Clark had retardation – he assessed Clark’s IQ at 65 and concluded that he had adaptive skill deficits in three areas (health and safety, social, and work). This was the fifth post-Atkins case that Dr Denkowski had worked on – in one other case he found that the defendant had mental retardation, in the other three he concluded that they did not have this level of impairment. Dr Denkowski found that Robert Smith had mental retardation, and an IQ of 63. The Harris County prosecutor accepted this, citing Denkowski’s expertise, and Smith’s death sentence was commuted. In 2006 and 2007 Dr Denowski found that death row inmates Darrell Carr, Demetrius Simms, and Exzavier Stevenson had mental retardation. In each case, the Harris County prosecutor accepted Dr Denkowski’s finding and the death sentences were commuted. In two other Harris County cases, those of Coy Wesbrook in 2006 and Brian Davis in 2004, Dr Denkowski concluded that the inmate did not have retardation. They remain on death row. In James Clark’s case, the Denton County prosecution did not accept Dr Denkowski’s finding of retardation. Instead it hired another psychologist, Dr Thomas Allen. He concluded that Clark was faking retardation to avoid execution. The defence had an assessment done by Dr Denis Keyes, an expert whose studies were among those cited in the Atkins ruling. Dr Keyes concluded that James Clark has retardation (and an IQ of 68). He noted that Dr Denkowski’s findings in Clark’s case were "credible and correct". In contrast to this, Dr Keyes noted that Dr Allen "did no standardized testing (which is required for diagnosis and for ruling out a diagnosis)." Neither Dr Keyes nor Dr Denkowski found that James Clark had faked his mental retardation during their assessments, something that these experts specifically tested for. An evidentiary hearing was held in the trial court in 2003, during which James Clark was shackled, handcuffed and forced to wear an electro-shock stun belt. When his lawyer asked for the stun belt to be removed, the judge refused. The judge deferred to Dr Allen’s conclusions, rejecting those of Drs Keyes and Denkowski. She held that an IQ score of 74 that Clark achieved in 1983 in youth custody was "the most reliable indicator" of his IQ because he then had no reason to fake retardation, whereas a finding now would determine whether he was executed or not. The judge ruled that the 1983 score did not meet the AAMR’s first criterion (IQ 70 or under) of mental retardation, even though with the generally accepted margin of error, a score of 74 falls within the range of 69-79. In addition, Dr James Flynn, an expert on assessing IQ scores to take account of changes over time, has concluded that “the best estimate” of James Clark’s 1983 score in terms of up-to-date norms would be about 68.57 (that is, very similar to Dr Keyes’ finding), and “it is almost certain that [Clark’s IQ] is not 70 or above”. In another post-Atkins case in 2006, the importance of the so-called “Flynn effect” and the margin of error was recognized by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA), when it remanded a case of an inmate with an IQ assessed at 81 to the trial court level for further evidentiary development on the retardation question. In March 2004 in James Clark’s case, the TCCA upheld the trial judge’s findings. Without holding any further evidentiary hearings, the federal courts have upheld the death sentence, with the Supreme Court refusing to take the case in February 2007. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Nearly five years on, the Texas legislature has not enacted a law to comply with the Atkins ruling. In the absence of legislation, the TCCA has taken it upon itself to issue guidelines for trial courts in making retardation determinations. In February 2004, the TCCA wrote: “The Texas legislature has not yet enacted legislation to carry out the Atkins mandate… [W]e must act during this legislative interregnum to provide the bench and bar with temporary judicial guidelines in addressing Atkins claims”. It asked: “Is there, and should there be, a ‘mental retardation’ bright-line exemption from our state’s maximum statutory punishment?... [W]e decline to answer that normative question without significantly greater assistance from the citizenry acting through its Legislature”. In February 2007, the TCCA emphasised that its 2004 guidelines “were intended only to be guidelines for trial courts to work with until the Legislature was to reconvene and establish conclusively both the substantive laws and the procedures that would bring our codes into compliance with the mandate issued by Atkins. Yet to this day, no such guidance has been provided by the Legislature.”
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 6, 2007 18:45:33 GMT -6
Let me add that although Texas has yet to adopt procedures, that doesn't mean they can't do the MR determination. It's just that there is no uniform way of handling them across the state right now. So each jursidication sorta has to fend for themselves and figure out a "right" way that they hope will be upheld on appeal. Apparently we are operating under TCCA guidelines issued in 2004. Which don't say much. Certainly don't give the DAs enough guidance, at least not based on conversations I had with one Tx DA in early 2006.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 18:59:52 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded?
And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway?
If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Sept 6, 2007 19:02:00 GMT -6
Apparently we are operating under TCCA guidelines issued in 2004. Which don't say much. Certainly don't give the DAs enough guidance, at least not based on conversations I had with one Tx DA in early 2006. Did he tell you what specifically DA's are confused about or what additional guidelines they'd like to have that weren't provided by the TCCA? Not trying to be a smart aleck, I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 6, 2007 19:02:56 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded? And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway? If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it. It's called "malingering." There are benchmarks, but don't know/remember them off the top of my head. ETA: Do a search on malingering and mental retardation. Here's one thing that came up (there are apparantly tests to give to detect it): Malingering / exaggeration / faking of Mental Retardation Mental retardation should be readily apparent in the person's development and school history. In criminal cases, it is not uncommon for those who are borderline or mildly mentally retarded to play up their limitations with court-appointed examiners or medical staff, while attempting to pass as normal (or close to) with their peers. There are few well-developed effort tests that are both sensitive and specific for exaggeration and malingering of intellectual deficits in the mentally retarded range, although mildly retarded persons should have no trouble performing on measures like the Test of Memory Malingering or the Word Memory Test.- that is, they should pass. In addition, some such defendants may perform below the level of chance on forced choice measures, which cannot be explained by limited ability.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 6, 2007 19:03:42 GMT -6
Here's my opinion. If they were able to pass a driver's license test, even if the test had to be read to them so they'd understand, then they knew what they were doing when they murdered someone.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Sept 6, 2007 19:13:14 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded? And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway? If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it. I think in Clark's case he had tested higher in 1983 so they went with that one since he had no reason to fake retardation at that time. This is from the article. "The judge deferred to Dr Allen’s conclusions, rejecting those of Drs Keyes and Denkowski. She held that an IQ score of 74 that Clark achieved in 1983 in youth custody was "the most reliable indicator" of his IQ because he then had no reason to fake retardation, whereas a finding now would determine whether he was executed or not." That's Clark, though. I have no idea how a doctor could determine that someone is faking retardation if they've never been tested before. School records? Witnesses who've observed behavior that does not indicate retardation? I'm sure there are other indicators but I don't know enough about the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Sept 6, 2007 19:42:37 GMT -6
I believe that penry is faking it as well. His days of playing with dolls and coloring books will be over soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 19:43:09 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded? And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway? If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it. In my experience when you determine if a person has "mental retartdation" it is not primarily assessed on one interview with the person, it is conducted over many and with many different Dr's assessing the person for a balanced view. They also speak to people who knew him prior to the crime, teachers, family, friends, co workers etc. The columbian encyclopedia defines mental retardation as " mental retardation below average level of intellectual functioning, usually defined by an IQ of below 70 to 75, combined with limitations in the skills necessary for daily living. Daily living skills include such things as communication, the ability to care for oneself, and the ability to work. The definition of mental retardation has evolved over the years. Prior categorizations of mental retardation, defined solely by IQ, have largely been abandoned in favor of an approach that looks at how much support the retarded person needs in various areas of his or her life at any given time. Such support can range from intermittent help in such things as finding housing or a job, to pervasive, daily, lifelong help in all areas."I don't think there is a checklist as such, but more how do they fit this description...its not an exact science and I guess there is no way to be 100% `certain that someone is not faking, but the risk of this here is limited as there are many professionals who assess the person. I have never done an assessment on someone who has been charged for murder, however i do believe that these are taken very seriously....I don't know about the states but I would assume that determining ones mental retardation is not taken one one dr's opinion??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 19:56:45 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded? And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway? If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it. In my experience when you determine if a person has "mental retartdation" it is not primarily assessed on one interview with the person, it is conducted over many and with many different Dr's assessing the person for a balanced view. They also speak to people who knew him prior to the crime, teachers, family, friends, co workers etc. The columbian encyclopedia defines mental retardation as " mental retardation below average level of intellectual functioning, usually defined by an IQ of below 70 to 75, combined with limitations in the skills necessary for daily living. Daily living skills include such things as communication, the ability to care for oneself, and the ability to work. The definition of mental retardation has evolved over the years. Prior categorizations of mental retardation, defined solely by IQ, have largely been abandoned in favor of an approach that looks at how much support the retarded person needs in various areas of his or her life at any given time. Such support can range from intermittent help in such things as finding housing or a job, to pervasive, daily, lifelong help in all areas."I don't think there is a checklist as such, but more how do they fit this description...its not an exact science and I guess there is no way to be 100% `certain that someone is not faking, but the risk of this here is limited as there are many professionals who assess the person. I have never done an assessment on someone who has been charged for murder, however i do believe that these are taken very seriously....I don't know about the states but I would assume that determining ones mental retardation is not taken one one dr's opinion?? Thank you, Kita. That helps me to understand more about why the different types of witnesses that I've learned of who testified at clark's hearing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 19:57:18 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded? And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway? If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it. It's called "malingering." There are benchmarks, but don't know/remember them off the top of my head. ETA: Do a search on malingering and mental retardation. Here's one thing that came up (there are apparantly tests to give to detect it): Malingering / exaggeration / faking of Mental Retardation Mental retardation should be readily apparent in the person's development and school history. In criminal cases, it is not uncommon for those who are borderline or mildly mentally retarded to play up their limitations with court-appointed examiners or medical staff, while attempting to pass as normal (or close to) with their peers. There are few well-developed effort tests that are both sensitive and specific for exaggeration and malingering of intellectual deficits in the mentally retarded range, although mildly retarded persons should have no trouble performing on measures like the Test of Memory Malingering or the Word Memory Test.- that is, they should pass. In addition, some such defendants may perform below the level of chance on forced choice measures, which cannot be explained by limited ability. Thanks Allison, I will do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 20:07:07 GMT -6
I would think even if there was a test, it can never be 100% IMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 20:15:56 GMT -6
Okay, I read several of the top links. Every definition I found for mental retardation included onset before 18 years of age. And looking for evidence of conflicting behaviors seemed to be important in uncovering malingering, in the ones I read. This was an easy to understand and interesting link about the importance of assessing malingering in a forensic setting: tinyurl.com/34b8c8According to that link there are several tests that can be administered. M-Fast, SIRS, or MMPI-2 are listed on that site. All seem to have an objective element in that someone has to analyze the results of the tests, and interpret them. It is not hard to see why these turn into battles of the experts.
|
|
|
Post by trogdor on Sept 6, 2007 22:45:32 GMT -6
Funny...the world is filled with retarded people (imzadi, for example) who choose not to murder.
Tards who murder people should be executed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 22:53:57 GMT -6
Trogdor, I think personally that if the retardation can be proven that they have the mental capacity of a child, how can they be executed?? Children are often tried as adults, adults should be able to be tried as children IMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 23:03:04 GMT -6
Okay, I read several of the top links. Every definition I found for mental retardation included onset before 18 years of age. And looking for evidence of conflicting behaviors seemed to be important in uncovering malingering, in the ones I read. This was an easy to understand and interesting link about the importance of assessing malingering in a forensic setting: tinyurl.com/34b8c8According to that link there are several tests that can be administered. M-Fast, SIRS, or MMPI-2 are listed on that site. All seem to have an objective element in that someone has to analyze the results of the tests, and interpret them. It is not hard to see why these turn into battles of the experts. Janet, This is so true, it seems the so called professionals often have their own agenda. If I was asked to do a psychological assessment on someone facing the D.P, Ipersonally would not do it as I do not think i could be objective given my anti D.P stance.Unfortuantly not all professionals live by the ethics of their profession, and to me this is wrong
|
|
|
Post by trogdor on Sept 6, 2007 23:23:07 GMT -6
Trogdor, I think personally that if the retardation can be proven that they have the mental capacity of a child, how can they be executed?? Children are often tried as adults, adults should be able to be tried as children IMO Your sentence structure is very poor, kita. You give me your personal opinion then ask me a rhetorical question based on your personal opinions. Then you come up with a total non-sequitir based on all that. But notwithstanding all this... At the very least, tards who commit murder DEFINITELY should be lobotomized. We already know that they will not somehow miraculously become unretarded. Therefore, their current state of tarditude is as good as it'll ever get...but yet that state is not good enough because they still chose to commit murder. They can't be rehabilitated so the only real solution is to lobotomize them in order to make them more controllable. Or we could just execute them, which is my preference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 23:32:03 GMT -6
Trogdor, I think personally that if the retardation can be proven that they have the mental capacity of a child, how can they be executed?? Children are often tried as adults, adults should be able to be tried as children IMO Your sentence structure is very poor, kita. You give me your personal opinion then ask me a rhetorical question based on your personal opinions. Then you come up with a total non-sequitir based on all that. But notwithstanding all this... At the very least, tards who commit murder DEFINITELY should be lobotomized. We already know that they will not somehow miraculously become unretarded. Therefore, their current state of tarditude is as good as it'll ever get...but yet that state is not good enough because they still chose to commit murder. They can't be rehabilitated so the only real solution is to lobotomize them in order to make them more controllable. Or we could just execute them, which is my preference. Thank you for your advice on my sentence structure, believe it or not, you aint the first to say it, (coming from someone who uses the word tards though) I can't respond right now though, I am too busy laughing at your word tarditude, as someone who has to be politically correct all the time, this is really funny, you know one of those sick funny moments when you aren't supposed to laugh but you can't help it
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Sept 7, 2007 4:42:38 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded? And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway? If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it. In my experience when you determine if a person has "mental retartdation" it is not primarily assessed on one interview with the person, it is conducted over many and with many different Dr's assessing the person for a balanced view. They also speak to people who knew him prior to the crime, teachers, family, friends, co workers etc. The columbian encyclopedia defines mental retardation as " mental retardation below average level of intellectual functioning, usually defined by an IQ of below 70 to 75, combined with limitations in the skills necessary for daily living. Daily living skills include such things as communication, the ability to care for oneself, and the ability to work. The definition of mental retardation has evolved over the years. Prior categorizations of mental retardation, defined solely by IQ, have largely been abandoned in favor of an approach that looks at how much support the retarded person needs in various areas of his or her life at any given time. Such support can range from intermittent help in such things as finding housing or a job, to pervasive, daily, lifelong help in all areas."I don't think there is a checklist as such, but more how do they fit this description...its not an exact science and I guess there is no way to be 100% `certain that someone is not faking, but the risk of this here is limited as there are many professionals who assess the person. I have never done an assessment on someone who has been charged for murder, however i do believe that these are taken very seriously....I don't know about the states but I would assume that determining ones mental retardation is not taken one one dr's opinion?? any such assessment will include, if its to be credible, a hisotry that is possible to coroborrate
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Sept 7, 2007 6:32:51 GMT -6
Wasn't Atkins later determined not to be mentally retarded? And how would a doctor specifically test for faking anyway? If anyone has any idea, I would be interested to read it. I think in Clark's case he had tested higher in 1983 so they went with that one since he had no reason to fake retardation at that time. This is from the article. "The judge deferred to Dr Allen’s conclusions, rejecting those of Drs Keyes and Denkowski. She held that an IQ score of 74 that Clark achieved in 1983 in youth custody was "the most reliable indicator" of his IQ because he then had no reason to fake retardation, whereas a finding now would determine whether he was executed or not." That's Clark, though. I have no idea how a doctor could determine that someone is faking retardation if they've never been tested before. School records? Witnesses who've observed behavior that does not indicate retardation? I'm sure there are other indicators but I don't know enough about the subject. school records would be an obvious source coupled with any other accounts of his history.
|
|