Should mentally disabled killers facing death be executed?

Post Reply New Topic

If this is true, this is an absolutely shocking case.

What to do with him instead then? Is the question.

Indeed, I definitely don't think he should be executed. What is normally done in North America when a person with an intellectual disability is convicted of a serious crime , like murder, does anyone know?

Instead of executing him, they should keep him locked up, not as punishment but to keep other people safe from him. In the Netherlands there is a system were these kind of people are locked up in something that looks like a cross between a prison and a hospital. Psychiatrists then determine whether they could be released after they´ve served their sentence.

Hm, as always, wikipedia explains it better than I could:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntar ... etherlands

And I'm not in favour of the death penalty anyway, except for some extreme cases (crazy evil dictators).

Some US states are truly backward. The vindictiveness rings of the sort of mentality of Captain Ahab from Moby Dick.

In regards to the poll, I think no one should be executed, whether they have an IQ of 70 or 170. An eye for eye makes the world blind.

I don't really see what good the death penalty really does in general, interestingly enough I was kind of thinking about that earlier and what actual purpose it really serves. But in a case like that I certainly don't think it should be used.

think about this- the logic is supposedly that the death penalty is a deterrance yet the United States has both the death penalty and one of, if not the developed worlds highest murder rate?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... her-develo

The empirical evidence suggests that it is not working.

Either life imprisonment, or become a roommate of John Hinckley Jr.( found not guilty by reason of insanity for shooting pres. Reagan) who still lives in St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital. Basically its a lifetime of incarceration either way. What else can you do with them?

Last edited by naturalplastic on 18 Feb 2013, 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't see what the big deal is. Does that mean if his IQ were 75, it wouldn't be absolutely shocking?

An adult with an IQ of 70 has a mental age of a 11-12 year old. Do 11-12 year olds not understand right and wrong?

You'd have to show that an IQ of 70 impairs one's ability to understand right and wrong and culpability.

I voted no, but I'm against the death penalty anyway.

Yes, fry them.
I don't support the mental illness plea.

IQ is a poor measure of competency in my opinion. My brother is disabled and has an IQ under 70 but he is very street smart and definitely knows right from wrong despite being almost completely illiterate. I would not differentiate them as a block from other killers.

The problem with the death penalty is the same for everyone, the government cannot be trusted to carry it out fairly and equally or always get the right guy.

Last edited by Jacoby on 18 Feb 2013, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree.

If we start using IQ as a strict measure of 'mental age' then we'd have to execute child criminals under 16 who had high IQs.

I'm opposed to the death penalty because it achieves nothing on a societal level.

I can see making exceptions for those of low IQ, but not if they kill someone.

There are some that would not know the differance, and who ever let them out on the street should go to jail.

The US does have a high murder rate, we got it from the garbage of Europe, their slave business, and the results of history.

I think all convicted killers should be deported to Europe, let them deal with it.

All African Americans convicted of a serious crime should be set free, in Africa.

This is a good point. Never thought of it that way. I'm against the death penalty in most cases... except for banksters maybe.

We should not confuse low IQ with a mental incapacity to understand right and wrong.

If a person is suffering from a disorder such that the person cannot understand the nature of their actions, then the issue of capital punishment never arises, because they do no meet the standard of of criminal responsibility for their actions.

What we are dealing with here are not people who cannot understand the nature of their actions, but rather people whose intellectual and cognitive development are sufficiently impeded that society has taken the view that their punishment ought to be mitigated. If an adult with has the intellectual capacity of an 11-12 year old, I think it is reasonable to ask, whether we would punish a 12 year old in the same way that we would punish a 17 year old, or a 22 year old if each committed the same transgression.

Certainly there are some who believe that the answer to that question is, "yes," and that 12 year-olds should be exposed to the full weight of the law. But that is not, I suggest, the prevailing sentiment among the body politic.

It doesn't nessisarily come down to knowing right and wrong, usually impulse control is looked at to....for instance I know it's wrong to attack people its not something I typically do, but if my PTSD gets set off really bad I may not be able to control my actions. So likewise the legal system is supposed to look at if the mental illness/disability interfered with impulse control. I forget what they all are but I learned in psychology all the things they are supposed to look at when determining sentencing of someone with a mental disability or severe mental illness.

Also I don't think 11-12 year olds are given the death penalty in this country, at least I'd hope not.