|
Post by Californian on Sept 7, 2007 6:47:10 GMT -6
I would think even if there was a test, it can never be 100% IMO No surprise. However, are you really amazed that so many DR inmates have suddenly become "retarded?" While I think we all realize that criminals are usually not as smart as the average bear, it's hardly surprising that when a loophole appears that could spare them from the gurney, many of them suddenly became dumber than dirt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2007 7:26:04 GMT -6
Maybe the loophole needs to be fixed to ensure that people with a genuine mental retardation get a "fair go"
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 7, 2007 8:02:43 GMT -6
Maybe the loophole needs to be fixed to ensure that people with a genuine mental retardation get a "fair go" It's apparent you don't understand our legal process. Once such a decision is made by our Supreme Court, each and every prisoner on death row, the vast majority of whom have never exhibited the least sign of mental retardation, became retarded in the minds of our anti brethren and the defense bar. Remember, as the gurney looms, it's "say anything" time.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2007 8:50:30 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. that really is why it takes so long. of course, it shouldn't even be allowed as a grounds for appeal. if the perp IS mentally ill, or even might be, that should be the defense at trial. if the jury doesn't buy it, then it would be legitimate grounds for appeal. you cannot raise grounds in a federal habeas petition that haven't been raised, and denied, in the state courts. i took one up at the traverse stage and attempted to argue that two of the grounds the person listed were just enhancements of the first four that had been denied in state court, that sunk like a lead balloon. especially since the passsing of atedp act was passed, i fail to see how they get on that train in the middle of the trip
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2007 9:09:13 GMT -6
Maybe the loophole needs to be fixed to ensure that people with a genuine mental retardation get a "fair go" actually, mental illness is not a defense, and there is no "statutory" prohibition against executing a retarded person. it was the u.s. supreme court that decided that it was unconstitutional
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 7, 2007 9:37:41 GMT -6
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. that really is why it takes so long. of course, it shouldn't even be allowed as a grounds for appeal. if the perp IS mentally ill, or even might be, that should be the defense at trial. if the jury doesn't buy it, then it would be legitimate grounds for appeal. you cannot raise grounds in a federal habeas petition that haven't been raised, and denied, in the state courts. i took one up at the traverse stage and attempted to argue that two of the grounds the person listed were just enhancements of the first four that had been denied in state court, that sunk like a lead balloon. especially since the passsing of atedp act was passed, i fail to see how they get on that train in the middle of the trip How they "get on the train" is that the US Supreme Court has said that it's unconstitutional to execute someone who is mentally retarded. So this isn't a habeas issue -- challenge things that happened at the trial -- it's a status issue, whether they're constitutionally permitted to be executed. We're talking 2 separate things. In Georgia, for those cases tried AFTER the US Supreme Court's decision, they do have to raise the MR issue prior to trial. But there needs to be a mechanism in place for those who were already convicted before the Supreme's decision -- those still can't be executed if they're really MR. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2007 15:41:45 GMT -6
that really is why it takes so long. of course, it shouldn't even be allowed as a grounds for appeal. if the perp IS mentally ill, or even might be, that should be the defense at trial. if the jury doesn't buy it, then it would be legitimate grounds for appeal. you cannot raise grounds in a federal habeas petition that haven't been raised, and denied, in the state courts. i took one up at the traverse stage and attempted to argue that two of the grounds the person listed were just enhancements of the first four that had been denied in state court, that sunk like a lead balloon. especially since the passsing of atedp act was passed, i fail to see how they get on that train in the middle of the trip How they "get on the train" is that the US Supreme Court has said that it's unconstitutional to execute someone who is mentally retarded. So this isn't a habeas issue -- challenge things that happened at the trial -- it's a status issue, whether they're constitutionally permitted to be executed. We're talking 2 separate things. In Georgia, for those cases tried AFTER the US Supreme Court's decision, they do have to raise the MR issue prior to trial. But there needs to be a mechanism in place for those who were already convicted before the Supreme's decision -- those still can't be executed if they're really MR. Make sense? totally. it hasn't been that long that it was an issue. it pretty much means that all of death row gets another run through the courts
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 7, 2007 16:15:42 GMT -6
How they "get on the train" is that the US Supreme Court has said that it's unconstitutional to execute someone who is mentally retarded. So this isn't a habeas issue -- challenge things that happened at the trial -- it's a status issue, whether they're constitutionally permitted to be executed. We're talking 2 separate things. In Georgia, for those cases tried AFTER the US Supreme Court's decision, they do have to raise the MR issue prior to trial. But there needs to be a mechanism in place for those who were already convicted before the Supreme's decision -- those still can't be executed if they're really MR. Make sense? totally. it hasn't been that long that it was an issue. it pretty much means that all of death row gets another run through the courts Well, hopefully most states have a gatekeeping mechanism similar to Georgia's -- in that they have to make a prima facie case for MR to a habeas judge. That pretty much means that if they can't come up with a childhood IQ test below 70, or can't come up with some school records that showed them struggling in school, they won't get a complete shot and their bogus claim can be thrown out pretty quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2007 18:00:44 GMT -6
Maybe the loophole needs to be fixed to ensure that people with a genuine mental retardation get a "fair go" actually, mental illness is not a defense, and there is no "statutory" prohibition against executing a retarded person. it was the u.s. supreme court that decided that it was unconstitutional The U.S supreme court made a good decision in my opinion, however I do agree that this makes it open to abuse by people "clutching at straws" to avoid the D.P. I don't know how to stop this Do the pro's here think that executing a genuinely mentally retarded person as "ok"?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2007 18:48:49 GMT -6
actually, mental illness is not a defense, and there is no "statutory" prohibition against executing a retarded person. it was the u.s. supreme court that decided that it was unconstitutional The U.S supreme court made a good decision in my opinion, however I do agree that this makes it open to abuse by people "clutching at straws" to avoid the D.P. I don't know how to stop this Do the pro's here think that executing a genuinely mentally retarded person as "ok"? i go by the mcnaughton rule. if you truly don't understand that what you did was wrong, you are insane. otherwise, you should be dead
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Sept 7, 2007 19:06:05 GMT -6
actually, mental illness is not a defense, and there is no "statutory" prohibition against executing a retarded person. it was the u.s. supreme court that decided that it was unconstitutional The U.S supreme court made a good decision in my opinion, however I do agree that this makes it open to abuse by people "clutching at straws" to avoid the D.P. I don't know how to stop this Do the pro's here think that executing a genuinely mentally retarded person as "ok"? That would depend. Would a genuinely retarded person know right from wrong? Would a genuinely retarded person be bright enough to hide evidence or cover up his crime? Would a genuinely retarded person be bright enough to plan a robbery down to the last detail, including murdering witnesses who might identify him? If he can do any of those things and he scores 68 instead of 70 on a IQ test, I think it would be "okay" to execute him. I'd like to ask you a question now. Why do you think it's better to incarcerate an extremely violent mentally retarded person for the rest of his life? I'm speaking of a murderer who acts on impulse and has very little self control, if any. In some ways he poses even more of a threat to prison employees than murderers who score 145 on a IQ test. I know that you don't support the DP under any circumstances but for a moment pretend that you do and I think you'll better understand what I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 7, 2007 19:31:15 GMT -6
The U.S supreme court made a good decision in my opinion, however I do agree that this makes it open to abuse by people "clutching at straws" to avoid the D.P. I don't know how to stop this Do the pro's here think that executing a genuinely mentally retarded person as "ok"? i go by the mcnaughton rule. if you truly don't understand that what you did was wrong, you are insane. otherwise, you should be dead McNaughton deals with mental illness, not mental retardation. She's asking whether you think that someone who thinks like an 8 year old should be subjected to the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Sept 7, 2007 19:51:20 GMT -6
I found this article. An adult who functions at the level of an 8 year old would have a IQ of 50. I would not support the DP for 50 or below. It's really only the 60-70 range that disturbs me. www.psychologicaltesting.com/iqtest.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2007 3:24:20 GMT -6
The U.S supreme court made a good decision in my opinion, however I do agree that this makes it open to abuse by people "clutching at straws" to avoid the D.P. I don't know how to stop this Do the pro's here think that executing a genuinely mentally retarded person as "ok"? That would depend. Would a genuinely retarded person know right from wrong? Would a genuinely retarded person be bright enough to hide evidence or cover up his crime? Would a genuinely retarded person be bright enough to plan a robbery down to the last detail, including murdering witnesses who might identify him? If he can do any of those things and he scores 68 instead of 70 on a IQ test, I think it would be "okay" to execute him. I'd like to ask you a question now. Why do you think it's better to incarcerate an extremely violent mentally retarded person for the rest of his life? I'm speaking of a murderer who acts on impulse and has very little self control, if any. In some ways he poses even more of a threat to prison employees than murderers who score 145 on a IQ test. I know that you don't support the DP under any circumstances but for a moment pretend that you do and I think you'll better understand what I'm trying to say. lisa, I do understand what you are saying, and I think to some extent my idea of a "retarded" person is different to yours. I am not an expert on the subject by any means, but I don't think that every person who is genuinely "retarded" does not know right from wrong. I remember when I was living in perth, i was helping this guy who suffered massive head injuries in a car accident while drink driving, he had a huge criminal record and after his accident he became a model citizen. He rode his bike around all day, picking up rubbish and taking aluminum cans to be recycled and then donating the money to charity. He remembered that before his accident he used to litter and all he could do from sunrise to sunset was pick up rubbish. I had no idea why, neither did the doctors working with him, but he definately knew right from wrong, he used to say things like 'I'm a good boy now" I personally agree with you about the IQ, and yeh if he can purposly cover up evidence, he clearly does know right from wrong, without a doubt...and no a genuinely retarded person would not be bright enough to plan a robbery in my opinion. It seems evident that people are using this as a last ditch effort to escape the D.P, I can understand that this would cause undue stress to the victims families which they clearly do not need.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Sept 8, 2007 4:46:44 GMT -6
That would depend. Would a genuinely retarded person know right from wrong? Would a genuinely retarded person be bright enough to hide evidence or cover up his crime? Would a genuinely retarded person be bright enough to plan a robbery down to the last detail, including murdering witnesses who might identify him? If he can do any of those things and he scores 68 instead of 70 on a IQ test, I think it would be "okay" to execute him. I'd like to ask you a question now. Why do you think it's better to incarcerate an extremely violent mentally retarded person for the rest of his life? I'm speaking of a murderer who acts on impulse and has very little self control, if any. In some ways he poses even more of a threat to prison employees than murderers who score 145 on a IQ test. I know that you don't support the DP under any circumstances but for a moment pretend that you do and I think you'll better understand what I'm trying to say. lisa, I do understand what you are saying, and I think to some extent my idea of a "retarded" person is different to yours. I am not an expert on the subject by any means, but I don't think that every person who is genuinely "retarded" does not know right from wrong. I remember when I was living in perth, i was helping this guy who suffered massive head injuries in a car accident while drink driving, he had a huge criminal record and after his accident he became a model citizen. He rode his bike around all day, picking up rubbish and taking aluminum cans to be recycled and then donating the money to charity. He remembered that before his accident he used to litter and all he could do from sunrise to sunset was pick up rubbish. I had no idea why, neither did the doctors working with him, but he definately knew right from wrong, he used to say things like 'I'm a good boy now" I personally agree with you about the IQ, and yeh if he can purposly cover up evidence, he clearly does know right from wrong, without a doubt...and no a genuinely retarded person would not be bright enough to plan a robbery in my opinion. It seems evident that people are using this as a last ditch effort to escape the D.P, I can understand that this would cause undue stress to the victims families which they clearly do not need. I like you more and more everyday, Kita.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 8, 2007 10:51:51 GMT -6
i go by the mcnaughton rule. if you truly don't understand that what you did was wrong, you are insane. otherwise, you should be dead McNaughton deals with mental illness, not mental retardation. She's asking whether you think that someone who thinks like an 8 year old should be subjected to the death penalty. and i answered it. if you knew that it is wrong to murder, you should be dead. that's the only legitimate criteria
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 8, 2007 11:17:48 GMT -6
McNaughton deals with mental illness, not mental retardation. She's asking whether you think that someone who thinks like an 8 year old should be subjected to the death penalty. and i answered it. if you knew that it is wrong to murder, you should be dead. that's the only legitimate criteria So if an 8 year old murders someone, knowing it was wrong, they should be executed?
|
|
|
Post by johnbgraf on Sept 15, 2007 10:13:45 GMT -6
and i answered it. if you knew that it is wrong to murder, you should be dead. that's the only legitimate criteria So if an 8 year old murders someone, knowing it was wrong, they should be executed? Can an 8 year old actually be executed? If not than that example would not apply.I guess the issue of wether a murderer is MR or not should'nt really be an issue.Murder is spelled the same no matter if you know how to spell "murder"or not. In the case of a person being "mentally retarded", or suffering from "mental illness"still does'nt excuse the crime. I have a hard time imagining someone murdering another person and taking the life away from an innocent victim,and not being subjected to the DP.Especially in the case of "mental illness" or "mental retardation". Unfortunately there are laws that apply to killer's who is out of their mind...Dos'nt make sence to me. I always thought a murderer has to be out of their "right" mind to begin with.Normal people are'nt murderers. If a person is out of their "right" mind to murder, maybe all murderers are "mentally ill" or "mentally retarded" in one level or another.So the DP should apply to all "murderers" no matter what...
|
|