This is a big topic right now in the courts and state legislatures. I'm really interested in hearing someone come up with arguments in *favor* of permitting the execution of people who are severely mentally ill, developmentally disabled, etc. If your birth year is even, you're in favor. If your birth year is odd, you're opposed. Them's the rules.

Go.

Edited to clarify that we are talking about execution for committing crimes. We aren't talking about eugenics or extermination or anything. I'm a little horrified that some of you thought the latter was a hot topic in the courts and legislature.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Answers

Wow... damn 1982.. I am in favor of executing the mentally disabled because in America today we have a shortage of things - money, food, housing, skilled labor, etc. If we kill all mentally and developmentally disabled people, we can take all the money we'd save, the housing, and the workers and have them help other people, like the homeless.

eh? maybe?

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Let's use Homer Simpson as an example of the mentally deficient.

If murdering people is equivalent to the task of understanding the nature of nuclear technology, then we could hardly blame Homer for killing a slew of people for not understanding the complicated tasks he is in charge of. (isn't he safety manager?)

However if Homer's job is broken down into watching this light, and pressing this button or something really bad will happen, (providing he's not distracted by a donut) we can generally agree that Homer has the capability of understanding the fundamental consequences of failing to do his job properly.

And of course, if he can understand the good/bad consequences of an action, we needn't worry that he doesn't really have the capability to understand the overall complicated picture.

Therefore, provided that we haven't overtasked Homer, we can correctly find him guilty of homicide through negligence, even though we generally agree, that compared to most people he goes through the world not quite "getting" it.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Ahhhh, thank goodness I was born in 1953.

Because some of us would kill anyone who dared to touch those whose only crime is that they---through no fault of their own---are not as mentally aware as others. Just as a practical matter.

They want to live as much as we do. They find as much joy in living as you or I. I've seen it. I can attest to it.

Because the quality of life is not dependent on your mental ability, contrary to what some would have us believe. Otherwise you would find less depressed people among the higher I.Q. set. Instead, you find as much or more depression among the intelligentsia as you do among those with lower I.Q.'s.

Because a mentally retarded person never invented an atom bomb---or an Agent Orange. If you are going to argue which is more potentially dangerous to mankind, than one can easily argue that those with higher I.Q.'s pose more of a danger than those with lower I.Q.'s.

(Notice I am NOT in favor of killing those with high I.Q.'s. I happen to know my I.Q. is above 140, or else I couldn't have gotten into a certain class when I was a kid.)

Are those of the mentally deficient that do have jobs, have jobs that anyone else is envious of? Or are they the most routine of jobs?

Because killing the innocent for something not their fault is, at the most elementary level, against practically any ethos out there. If your ethos can stretch that far, it's virtually nonexistent.

The only way you can argue that is that if you feel their existence is a torture to them. Yes, there are times when a mentally deficient person's differences are a torture to them---especially in adolescence. But then, don't we all torture ourselves a little during adolescence for any differences we have?

Have I seen some extremely happy mentally deficient people? Yeppers.

So using developmentally disabled as a criteria for executing someone falls short of any possible justification, in my view.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

erm... I'm pretty sure the subject is execution for crimes, not extermination..

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Whoops, sorry.....

My bad. Totally misunderstood the question. Thought you were talking about euthenasia of the mentally disabled, a la Hitler.

(And yeah, I have heard people argue that, also...)

(Roseannadanna voice.) Never mind.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Gah. 1962. In favor.

To start things off, here's the 1989 Supreme Court decision.

Penry v. Lynaugh (decided June 26, 1989) raised eighth amendment concerns related to instructions to a Texas jury on the consideration of mitigating evidence and of subjecting a mentally retarded offender to the death penalty. The defendant, who raped, beat, and stabbed a woman to death with a pair of scissors, was determined to be competent to stand trial though he was mentally retarded. A Texas jury found him sane and convicted him of capital murder. The sentencing jury was instructed to consider three special issues during the penalty phase: (1) whether the conduct was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that death would result; (2) whether there was a probability that the offender would pose a continuing threat to society; and (3) whether the killing was unreasonable in response to any provocation by the victim. Defense counsel objected to the trial court's failure to define selected terms in these instructions and to indicate that mitigating circumstances, such as the defendant's mental retardation, should be considered. The jury voted yes on each of the three special issues, and the court imposed a death sentence. The death sentence was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Federal district court, and the court of appeals. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that (1) Texas juries must be given instructions, upon request, that allow them to give full consideration to mitigating evidence; (2) the instructions to the jury must indicate that the jury could consider the weight of the mitigating evidence, in this case the defendant's mental retardation and abused childhood, in determining the defendant's culpability for sentencing; and (3) the eighth amendment does not categorically prohibit the execution of capital murderers with the defendant's mental abilities since he had been found neither incompetent for trial nor insane.

I'll be back with a well-reasoned argument.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Um, yes, Lynda is correct. Holy cow. Never thought you guys would go there! I'll go edit the original question.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Okay, let me try it again, with the right question...

BTW, as for I'm a little horrified that some of you thought the latter was a hot topic in the courts and legislature. ---let's just say I live in the South, and very little shocks me any more when it comes to silliness proposed in the courts OR the legislature here. (In fact, Tennessee very recently executed a guy who did a horrific rape-murder ---who was mentally deficient.)

I can't see it, simply because of the obvious; their mental deficiency would keep them from making a reasoned judgement in this case. An argument COULD be made that they will NEVER be able to see the inherent "wrong" in killing someone, raping someone, etc., and we might as well kill them, as we would a mad dog, which isn't to blame for its plight either, but is a danger to the population.

But the obvious answer to that is that the individual is not a dog; they have legal rights no non-human animal has. Is it fair to hold an individual without the judgement to really know that killing is wrong---responsible for same?

Jamie, for instance, was a giant. Usually a gentle giant, but he was six foot four or five when he died, outweighed me by a lot. He could and DID hurt me sometimes, even drawing blood by biting me, when frustrated. He was sometimes subject to temper tantrums.

If he had killed me during such an encounter, could he conceivably be held RESPONSIBLE for it? No. When he was frustrated he was under the influence of endomorphins and wouldn't even consider his OWN pain (he would often self-mutilate himself, biting hismelf) until minutes afterwards. If he wouldn't consider his own pain, can he possibly be held responsible for pain he caused others? Did he ever, really, understand that I COULDN'T shut off the pain in my nerves the way he did?

I don't know. I don't think so. And the point is, no one will ever know for sure, since he couldn't communicate.

Even those who can communicate, how much can they understand of the consequences of their actions?

If someone is shown to be a consistent danger, yes, imprisonment is just, confinement is just....but killing them will give no satisfaction to the victim's families, or to society. I'm not a big fan of capital punishment, but at least you can make a case if someone understands the consequences of their action, and did it deliberately, they chose the course that resulted in their death.

You cannot make that argument with the developementally disabled, the severely retarded, or those deeply mentally ill. Their judgement is the very thing that is impaired, and thus, they chose...nothing. Their condition chose for them.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

1972.

Interestingly, I just started re-reading Foucault's Discipline and Punish last night which talks about about why we execute criminals at all, so I was actually sort of thinking about this already.

One reason we execute criminals is to protect society from the possibility of any future destructive acts by that person. The fact that someone is mentally disabled does not make them less destructive. As Al mentioned, we routinely kill animals which are shown to be dangerous to society for this reason.

Al also points out that "[humans] have legal rights no non-human animal has." But one could argue that the privileges of being human (being treated humanely) go hand in hand with the responsibilities of being human (treating others humanely). Humans' superior intellect and capacity for compassion is generally what we use to justify treating animals and humans differently. If a person does not understand that murdering someone is wrong, does he deserve the rights of a human being? And if so, what, if not intellect and compassion, constitutes the basis for imbuing humans with greater rights than animals?

The other major rationale for executing criminals is revenge. Many families of murder victims want very much for the person who killed their loved one to pay with their lives--so much so that many even choose to attend that person's execution. The fact that the perpetrator is mentally disabled and possibly does not understand the impact of his or her actions does not lessen the family's grief at losing a loved one.

(n.b. Please keep in mind that this is only an academic exercise--I do not really believe that the mentally disabled are comparable to dogs)

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

I don't have time to formulate anything for this now (1961, thank goodness), but here's a good article explaining some of the issues: The Criminal Justice System and Persons With Mental Retardation.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

But would Jamie had been judged competent to stand trial? If he could not communicate, he would have been unable to assist in his own defense and therefore unfit to stand trial. Right?

I think the argument is that if a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, than he or she is subject to the penalties of the jurisdiction. Competent to stand trial = competent to understand the punishment levied. The Constitution allows for no special treatment for the mentally ill or disabled as long as the competency standard is met.

Or is that wrong?

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

The message right above this one... that should be then, not than.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

1982, here we go. Every criminal we execute is mentally deficient, or he would be rehabilitatible (is that even a word?). Dorothy Lewis, a psychologist at NYU Medical School, has been studying death row inmates for 20 years and has never found even one without serious mental problems of one form or another. She attributes much of this to childhood abuse. When a person is under stress, they produce a hormone called cortisol, which is toxic in high amounts, especially to developing brains. She said in one interview that she's seen killer's brains that were just mush, and that these people shouldn't medically even be able to walk, much less reason. As an example: In Dr. Lewis' study of 15 adult consecutive death row inmates in 1984 (sentenced between 1976 and 1984): a) All had histories of head injuries objectively determined, and nearly all had evidence of neurological dysfunction. Five had major neurological impairments, including seizures, paralysis, brain atrophy, psychomotor epilepsy and other neurologic signs. b) On psychological testing, ten had evidence of significant cognitive dysfunction. c) Nine had serious psychiatric symptoms in childhood, four had tried suicide, six were found to be chronically psychotic, antedating incarceration; another three were periodically psychotic and two had bipolar disorder.

Yet, none appeared to be floridly psychotic at first glance and nearly all attempted to minimize their problems. Since these disorders affect judgment, reality testing and self-control, they certainly are relevant to sentencing.

The other study. of 14 consecutive juveniles on death row, identified nearly all as having been severely physically and/or sexually abused. Nine had serious neurologic deficits, seven were psychotic, and the other seven had serious psychiatric symptoms. Only two had IQ's above 90 and ten had significant impairments on psycho-educational testing. Nearly all had parents with alcohol, drug and psychiatric histories. I got this information at: http://www.rfmh.org/whps/syn197.htm

Crazy people can premeditate murder. These criminals have lost their humanity in a wash of hormones, drugs, and trauma. While I realize it isn't their fault, society has to protect itself. The only other option would be a life spent in captivity, which is no life at all. the only humane and wise thing to do is to set them free from their prison.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Heaven help us when low intelligence becomes a defense for murder or an excuse for a reduced sentence.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

"Al also points out that "[humans] have legal rights no non-human animal has." But one could argue that the privileges of being human (being treated humanely) go hand in hand with the responsibilities of being human (treating others humanely). Humans' superior intellect and capacity for compassion is generally what we use to justify treating animals and humans differently. If a person does not understand that murdering someone is wrong, does he deserve the rights of a human being? And if so, what, if not intellect and compassion, constitutes the basis for imbuing humans with greater rights than animals?"

Welllll...not usually. After all, we treat children with different rules---usually, save for some highly publicized trials recently--- because they have not formed a sufficient judgement for themselves to be held fully responsible for what they do. We don't treat them as we do animals, because they ARE human---and if anything, we give them MORE protection, treat them more with kid gloves, because they cannot form a reasoned judgement for themselves.

Yet, I know of a LOT of kids who truth to tell, have a lot more idea what is going on and what the consequences of their actions are--- than some mentally deficient adults.

If we take THESE human beings and if anything give them MORE protection under the law because of their age and thus, immature judgement---surely we should do the same to those who can NEVER form a mature judgement, due to their very deficiencies?

I'm not saying that imprisonment, either at jail or a mental institution, isn't necessary. Obviously, society must protect itself. But the precedent has always been to treat those with lesser judgement with MORE protection, not less. As we do children who commit criminal acts....how more so should we treat those with no ability to ever progress beyond a child-like regard for violent acts? We would cry out if one executed a five-year-old who pointed at his sister with a loaded gun and cried "Bang!" and killed her, not realizing the gun wasn't fake---how can one execute someone with the mental status of a five-year-old who kills someone?

---Al of NOVA NOTES. (Bear in mind I was born in 1953, so my role is predetermined. Actually, I think there ARE some mentally retarded adults who could kill and be held liable for it to the full extent of the law....just like some kids kill and know full well what they're doing. Yet I think that should be approached on a case-by-case basis, and execution, under such circumstances, should be even rarer than it is in other cases.)

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

1961 - Opposed.

I think the key is in the question itself with the word 'severely'. While some of the less severely mentally ill or disabled (and bear in mind, these are different things) may be able to differentiate between right and wrong, use sound enough judgement to know what an act of murder is, etc, someone who falls in the severe category would not, nor should they be judged capable of even standing trial.

We have other measures we use to handle them, and when the system works, we handle it by not dumping them out into society *before* they commit an act of violence.

This ought to be regarded as a healthcare issue, not a punitive issue, and the solution isn't to open the door to executing them, but in being more committed about properly caring for them so that they can't commit crimes they aren't capable of understanding or practicing the self-control necessary to avoid.

In the case of less severely mentally disabled criminals, I think we do better to err on the side of caution, and regard them as approximating the age at which they can think. To be regarded as 'mildly retarded', they would have the mental capacity of a sixth grader, usually with accompanying levels of emotional immaturity. As far as I know, we no longer execute 12 year olds, no matter how heinous their crime might be.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

We don't treat [children] as we do animals, because they ARE human-- -and if anything, we give them MORE protection, treat them more with kid gloves, because they cannot form a reasoned judgement for themselves.

I would say that the reason why we don't treat children as we do animals is partly because we know that children generally go on to become (relatively) intelligent, compassionate adult humans, but also largely because we are biologically biased towards our own species.

In the case of the severely mentally handicapped, who will never go on to become reasoned adults, we are left only with that bias to distinguish them from animals.

You say that we treat children differently because they are "human," but you don't explain why humans should be treated differently than other animals. As far as I can see, the only real rational basis for distinguishing humans from other species are the intellectual and emotional qualities of humans. Those qualities are present in varying degrees in young children and in the mentally disabled.

As for the fact that children enjoy greater protection under the law than adults, this is in some ways true, but children are also given fewer privileges by virtue of their status as supposedly not-fully- developed people. Children in the U.S. are (generally) not allowed to hold full-time jobs, not allowed to live on their own without a guardian, not allowed to sign contracts. Mentally handicapped adults are also legally denied some of these rights. In the eyes of the law, both groups are not considered worthy of these basic human rights which any typical American adult takes for granted.

We would cry out if one executed a five-year-old who pointed at his sister with a loaded gun and cried "Bang!" and killed her, not realizing the gun wasn't fake---how can one execute someone with the mental status of a five-year-old who kills someone?

But isn't there a distinction between an actual five year old, who will presumably grow up to understand the destructive power of a gun, and someone who will always mentally be that five year old murderer? The former would seem to have a far greater chance of going on to understand the gravity of his actions and becoming a law-abiding citizen than the latter.

But also, as you probably know, more and more there is a trend to treat children who commit serious crimes as adults.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Also, Jen, If a mildly-retarded person killed someone under the circumstances Al described for that five-year-old, we wouldn't seek the death penalty anyway. His is a vacuous argument based on emotion.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Um, hi. Hello. See that topic header up there? Debate Club. Practice your debating skills. Not your insult vocabulary. Participate, or go bug somebody on another thread. Thank you for your time.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Beth, if you're talking to me I think you must have mis-read my post.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

"I would say that the reason why we don't treat children as we do animals is partly because we know that children generally go on to become (relatively) intelligent, compassionate adult humans, but also largely because we are biologically biased towards our own species."

If a child were doomed to an early death---say, from childhood diabetes or AIDS---would it lessen their legal standing or their protection under the law? No.

I would agree with the latter. We are biologically biased towards our own species. Indeed, I would even further add that we haven't the right to judge others of our own kind and their general "worth" to humankind. We're too close to it.

"In the case of the severely mentally handicapped, who will never go on to become reasoned adults, we are left only with that bias to distinguish them from animals."

Indeed. And I hope we have not gotten to the point that arguing that one's worth as a human being---depends on how much they contribute to the reasoning adult world. If that were the case, few of us would really qualify as "worth" anything.

"You say that we treat children differently because they are "human," but you don't explain why humans should be treated differently than other animals. As far as I can see, the only real rational basis for distinguishing humans from other species are the intellectual and emotional qualities of humans. Those qualities are present in varying degrees in young children and in the mentally disabled."

And in chimpanzees (who can be taught to communicate by sign language) and the compassion of dolphins, who sometimes are said to save drowning humans. Are we saying our worth is dependent on our intellectual and emotional qualities? Than we must argue, by extension, that I am worth more than someone with an IQ of 100, because I have a higher IQ, or that an actor, who can display a wide range of emotion, is of more worth than a shy human being.

Luckily, I believe no such thing.

I submit that our worth as human beings springs from the very fact that we have learned how dangerous it is to make such relative judgements. That any attempt to distinguish the worth of a human being by either intellectual or emotional degree has been shown--- repeatedly---to be an intellectually and emotionally barren idea.

That the equality of human beings under the law, no matter how ludicrous that "equality" is in fact---regardless of their intellectual deficiencies or emotional stuntedness---is the bedrock of modern civilization and law.

"As for the fact that children enjoy greater protection under the law than adults, this is in some ways true, but children are also given fewer privileges by virtue of their status as supposedly not-fully- developed people. Children in the U.S. are (generally) not allowed to hold full-time jobs, not allowed to live on their own without a guardian, not allowed to sign contracts. Mentally handicapped adults are also legally denied some of these rights. In the eyes of the law, both groups are not considered worthy of these basic human rights which any typical American adult takes for granted."

Excellent! I agree completely. We agree that certain individuals CANNOT decide for themselves. But you can't have it both ways. You can't deny them the right to decide for themselves on some of the most basic issues...and then say, where their judgement is concerned, they are just as able to decide for themselves whether or not to commit a executible offense---as we who are not so constrained. And just as liable, legally, for the fullest punishment under the law.

"But isn't there a distinction between an actual five year old, who will presumably grow up to understand the destructive power of a gun, and someone who will always mentally be that five year old murderer? The former would seem to have a far greater chance of going on to understand the gravity of his actions and becoming a law-abiding citizen than the latter."

Is a child under a death sentence, who will die as a child, then of less worth to society than a child who will grow up? One could argue that---but not in the eyes of the law.

The law, thankfully, does not discriminate on one's potential worth--- only on one's current status.

"But also, as you probably know, more and more there is a trend to treat children who commit serious crimes as adults."

Yes. That would make another good question for the debate club. I'm not sure it's a wise trend. And in most cases, a child is still sent to juvenile court, and is treated differently under the law. With reason.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

"Also, Jen, If a mildly-retarded person killed someone under the circumstances Al described for that five-year-old, we wouldn't seek the death penalty anyway. His is a vacuous argument based on emotion."

Then let's add an element, Dave, and see if it measures up to your intellectual standards. Let's say the five-year-old boy often is angry and says they "hate" the sister. Let's further say the mentally disabled adult also has reason to hate the person they killed.

Could you be sure---in either case---that the killing wasn't deliberate?

Even so...does it really matter? Even if either meant to kill the person---would they really be worthy of the death sentence?

Honestly curious, Dave. I say no. Do you say differently? And if you do---would you say it in both cases? Or would you hold the child not responsible---but the mentally retarded adult responsible?

And if so...why?

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

1954--therefore pro.

Our legal system already has safeguards against the type of injustice that is being complained about here--standards relating to competency to stand trial, the insanity defense, standards of "intent" built into the definition of crimes (like "premeditation" in first-degree murder). If a person is fairly convicted despite these safeguards, then their IQ is irrelevant--whether it be 65 or 165. It also concerns me how accurate these IQ tests are. AFAIK, they cannot be accurate without the willing cooperation of the subject. Therefore, if we make a rule that if you have a low IQ you will not be executed if you commit murder, people will just deliberately do poorly on their IQ tests. Duh!

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Great idea, Beth, a chance to argue without the emotional investment and subsequent hurt feelings (in theory, at least).

1969--Con (Whew)

Two things hit me.

1. I think someone above said something about the defendant needing to understand the punishment in order for it to be a punishment. I will assert for this debate that this point is valid. What is the point of punishment if the one being punished doesn't understand what's going on? This is actually happening here in Ohio right now as a man on death row has had his execution delayed twice (the last time, the needles were in his arm when the call came). And it hinges on this point. Does he get it? Does he understand what's happening and why?

2. To get back to Foucault and DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH, one of his key arguments is that the idea of punishment is a social construction. We develop punishments that fit the general workings of society. We develop the death penalty to stop people from commiting certain crimes. If a person is not able to comprehend the severity of the death penalty, then how are they going to comprehend the severity of the crime? How are they going to know that certain things are "bad"?

Okay, these are real quick points before my ride gets here. I can already determine the counterarguments. Go.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

(I don't understand the date year thing. I can't argue a position except the one I believe in.)

I'm in favor of the death penalty because I think it's an appropriate penalty for someone who kills someone else, under some circumstances. I don't think it is a deterrent or has anything to do with accepting consequences.

I don't see why mentally disabled people who do serious crimes should be treated any differently. They've demonstrated they're a danger.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Pro: Let's start with the idea that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in general. As others have stated, defendents aren't supposed to be considered for the death penalty unless they have been proven competent to stand trial---competent in that they understand their actions and the potential consequences. If a mentally disabled person meets that legal criteria, they should have to follow the rules of the rest of society.

One of the things that disturbs me is determining "mentally disabled". Do we just set the limit at some arbitrary IQ number? Based on what test, and when? Why not a few points higher or lower?

I think if we start with the rule of "competent to stand trial" we need to follow that through to the logical conclusion that sanity as well as mental abilities are included in comptence.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

I'm late answering this because I was away much of last week. Thanks to my birth year, I favor executing the mentally disabled for murder.

Simply put, we in the U.S. don't understand why we impose criminal sentences on people. We don't know if we're exacting revenge, trying to rehabilitate them, or trying to prevent them from repeating their crimes. I think (today) that the only proper reason for criminal sanctions is to prevent crime: deter and disable the criminals.

Death as a penalty guarantees zero recidivism. Society needs to protect itself agains mentally disabled killers as much as against any others.

The death penalty for the mentally disabled also imposes a greater deterrent on the general population of potential criminals. Perhaps the mentally disabled themselves don't plan around the potential penalties, but the general population is aware of a higher likelihood that they will be executed if convicted of murder.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

This all really depends on the level of mental retardation...

Mild degrees, or impairment of Down Syndrome, could still lead to the retard in question to be held respensible.

About the latter bit, that's the more interesting question...

Because it's a whole new scope of a type of mutant ethnic cleansing, only it's not based on ethnicity, so i guess i'd call it mental cleansing.

I'm highly in favor of it (one of you mentioned "A la Hitler") and that's what i'm proposing. Only we don't necessarily kill them, retards make very good lab rats.

By keeping the weak in society alive, they pass on their genes, thus weakening society. Fact: we eliminate retards, less retards will have retard babies...

harsh...but true, because today, the gene pool needs a bit of chlorine

I'm not in favor of persecution of race, religion, or anything along those grounds because it is unwarranted. But SEVERELY mentally retarded people are nothing more than a burden on society...a waste of space and resource. I'm not for killing off the really old people, either, because they were once useful members of society so they deserve to be cared for later on.

But if you've got someone with their testicles hanging from their nose and they don't even have an IQ high enough grunt, then take them and see what happens when they get a tad too much gamma. Or try out some funky new virus, see what happens, it's be a like a fun little lab game of trial and error. Of course, the results would be different on fully capable humans, but you could at least see how living tissue would react to different things.

Honestly people, be realistic, those who are severely mentally retarded never have nor can they ever be anything but a burden, kill them off, the world would be a better place

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

It's called natural selection, survival of the fittest. Every other species known to man does it. What makes us as a human race think that we are any different. The weak, sick and dependent are eliminated to create balance. The earth is well on it's way to over population and the unfortunant, born with little chance as it is, should be the first to go, that's nature. People with mental disabilities are with no doubt the weak side of our population, should rest of the world suffer because we are carrying 'dead weight'? They are a waste of money, space and effort.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Nice trolls, Wax and Mellissa.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Al, I would guess they're not reading Beth's disclaimer, where she explained that the misleading subject line was not intentional.

I, for one, was sickened when I saw this topic started.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Oh, come on. Just the word "execution" pretty clearly implies that the question most likely has a legal or judicial basis. The fact that the question is based on debates occurring in the courts and in legislature is another hot clue there. Assuming that the question was referring to eugenics is really jumping sloppily to conclusions.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Oh, come on yourself. When something is so obviously unclear and open to misinterpretation it is pretty pathetic to blame the people who misinterpreted it instead of accepting responsibility for your mistake. Had the title been "The Death Penalty and the Mentally Disabled," it would have been as clear as day.

As written, without further context, the title does imply eugenics.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Oh, Jesus. I edited the original post a few hours after it was posted, and our friendly troll responded over a week later. So unless she was only answer the title without reading the actual question, or unless she read it over a week ago and only now got around to responding without reading any of the subsequent discussion, she doesn't have much of an excuse.

In any event, this is a debate topic, so part of the point of that is to read the whole goddamn thread. And all of this is off topic. So Dave, drop it and move on.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Well, Beth, that's a whole different thing from what Jen said. Since I have already addressed what Jen said, at this point it is up to Jen to drop it and move on.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

To repeat: the wording of the question is not the topic of this debate. Who said what is not the topic of this debate. Drop it.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Excuse me, what? I didn't respond to your comment, Dave. Seems pretty dropped to me. (Except for the part where I point out that a recent New York Times headline was "Executing the Retarded." Is the NYT talking about eugenics? I dunno.)

Sorry, sorry.

Anyway. Let me stick this back on topic.

73. Opposed.

I can only point out that in cases where the death penalty is presented as a conviction option, jurors are urged to consider three things: "whether the defendant acted deliberately to cause death, whether the defendant presented a continuing threat to society and whether the defendant's conduct was unreasonable in response to any provocation."

This is misleading and unfair in the case of mentally retarded defendants. It can be argued that most jurors would consider that, as mentally retarded person who has already demonstrated a loss of control in a situation that resulted in a murder, the defendant would be more likely than non-disabled individuals to continue to pose a threat to society. This is not demonstrably true. In light of these special conditions, prejudice could lead to the higher likelihood of death penalty convictions for the mentally retarded.

The allowance of death sentences for the disabled means that a trial might very well be unfairly skewed, and justice subverted.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Oh, why don't the two of you just drop it and move on already. Sheesh.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Hmm. Perhaps we need a good solid example to illustrate the finer points of this question.

Strap yourself in, Dave.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Curtis, that was so uncalled for. Now drop it and move on.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Yessir, Mistah Dave. I'se sorry.

~

Ontopic: The Penry decision was surprising, for all sorts of reasons. But they skipped the question of our debate entirely. My understanding is that the upcoming decision out of NC is going to force the question.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Tsk, tsk, Curtis, you're still not debating.

The latest Penry decision upheld that the jury should (be allowed to) consider Penry's mental retardation in giving sentence. So it is basically up to the jury to decide whether he should be able to avoid the death penalty by way of his retardation.

That makes me uncomfortable. Penry's council is also trying to use his past child abuse as an excuse as. I realize retardation and child abuse are going to be tough to deal with, but does it make the crime of a brutal rape and murder any less awful? Should we really give them a reduced sentence just because we feel sorry for them?

This man knew what he was doing and he should pay for it. It is impossible to argue he didn't know what he was doing. He deliberately murdered this woman after raping her, with no provocation. Did he understand the consequences? Who cares. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. If a murderer can show he didn't know his state allowed the death penalty should he be exempt? Of course not.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

"Did he understand the consequences? Who cares."

I do.

I don't argue that the person shouldn't be jailed, incarcerated, kept seperate from society at large. We have a right to protect ourself. But the question is the execution of the mentally unfit. I do argue that it is the very nadir of motivations to kill someone---for doing something that they can't understand.

If he doesn't understand the consequences, then how can he be held responsible? Responsible for what?

If you admit he doesn't understand the consequences, than it's manslaughter by any reasonable standards---a killing that happened that was unintended by the killer....because he didn't know the consequences. We don't kill people who do manslaughter. We jail them, but we don't kill them.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Al, those weren't the consequences I was talking about. Testimony at the Penry trial indicated he did understand he was killing someone and what it meant. What he supposedly doesn't understand (or didn't understand) is/was that he would be put to death if he was caught and convicted.

Are you really arguing a person should be exempt from penalties if he doesn't know about them? That runs contrary to one of the cornerstones of our justice system, that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Heck, he probably didn't know he might spend the rest of his life in jail either. Should we let him out in a few years?

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

You are walking home. A stange man punches you. Knocks you to the ground.

The ground is hard. There are rocks. You are dizzy, disoriented. You've got asphalt burns on your elbows, your cheek --

This is the least of your problems.

He pushes you flat. Forces your clothes away. Fabric rips. You fight, but he's stronger. And he's hurting you. He forces your legs apart and penetrates you. You can't stop it. You have to lie there till it's over and you don't know when it will be over. Or if it will be over.

It won't.

He stabs you with a pair or scissors. He stabs you again. He stabs you until you are butchered meat surrounded by several pints of blood that are supposed to be in your body, but now they aren't, now they are soaking into dirt.

That is the last memory you will have. And the last image of you your family will ever see. You, butchered, half clothed, on dirt, raped, mutilated, torn, stabbed dead.

Do you care whether your attacker is retarded? How many times does he have to stab you with a pair of scissors for you to not care? One time? Four times? Ten?

When he gets out of prison, would you like him to run into your mother? Your sister? Your daughter? Your grandmother?

Revenge is not an issue for me. Nor is intelligence, childhood traumas, or accuity. Not running into this person, ever, is an issue. No woman running into this person, ever, is an issue.

Put him down.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Yet the answer to BOTH of you is again, that there is no argument that the retarded person in this case should be kept locked away forever. I am not being threatened by Charles Manson, nor will I ever be. No parole board would be so idiotic as to let him out. So that answers m. adam's argument---for that person will not threaten anyone again.

The argument is take away the life from someone who cannot understand the consequences---as in the penalties, the results---of his actions.

Not DOES not. Please note that.

CAN not.

Would you sue a doctor for negligence because he didn't get up and help someone who was dying in front of his eyes---if he were crippled and UNable to move? Similarly, there is a difference between ignorance---the lack of knowledge, which can be remedied---and the literal inability to comprehend.

What's the difference? And what is fair about killing someone for something they cannot---CAN not--comprehend?

I find it interesting, anyway, that one is SURE that the killer/rapist knew what he was doing, yet SURE he didn't know what would happen afterwards.

I'm sure of neither. If one cannot do one, can one do the other? I think there's a possibility there....

A reasonable doubt.

I don't think anyone should be killed---when one has a reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone should be killed---for what they can NOT do.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

He did understand the consequences of his actions, Al. The consequences of his actions were another human being would be dead. The fact he understood that, and that it was wrong to kill another human being, were determined which was why he was deemed fit to stand trial in the first place.

Your argument seems to be that, if someone is not aware of penalties that can be exacted by a state for a crime, that person should not be subjected to those penalties.

That is not how the law works. The law is based on intent. Not a perpetrator's understanding of the law. His intent, while performing a crime. That is what differentiates degrees of murder and state sanctioned penalties for same. And what "reasonable doubt" is based on.

By your argument, anyone who hasn't passed the bar exam in the state they perpetrate a crime in cannot be tried or incarcerated for crimes intended or otherwise. So when someone steals your car, all they have to say is they didn't realize they could do 15 years for that and poof, no sentence?

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2001

I am reserving judgement on whether a psychiatrist is competent to say one knows the consequences of their actions---as in the immediate result of someone being killed...and yet unable to comprehend that it will mean execution or life in prison. I find it an interesting dichotomy, and psychiatry is not such an exact science that I think they can say it without reservation or hedging. It is an expert opinion, true, but it is an opinion---and experts have often been shown to be wrong before.

Again, I am not saying they should be exempt from punishment, am I? I am all for this individual being held in prison for the rest of his life.

Yet I do find it utterly unfair that someone should be held to the ultimate punishment, the irrevocable one---death by execution---when one has no idea (supposedly) that his actions will result in same. That one by definition CANNOT have any idea of same.

I'm glad you feel, though, that "consequences" in this case merely reflect the immediate results of one's actions, rather than the ultimate results of one's actions. By THAT thinking, then, one shouldn't support the death penalty as a "deterrent"--- because the ultimate consequences are irrelevant. (Not saying you favor it for its deterrent value, just commenting.)

And indeed, study after study show the death penalty isn't a deterrent.

DNA tests show time after time that we often imprison and put on death row the wrong people. If that happens to people with reasonable I.Q.'s, I wonder how much more often it happens to the retarded, who cannot mount a good coherent defense, and are easily confused?

Imprison them: but to give them a punishment for which there is no remedy---when they, by definition cannot conceive of GETTING the punishment for the act---does strike me as barbaric.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2001

Oh, well you and I think differently. I think people should not rape and stab people because it is very bad manners. Not because they know if they get caught bad things might happen to them too. I also believe being dead is a pretty big deterent to raping and stabbing people so maybe those studies you cite are missing the point.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

No.

Study after study shows that the death penalty isn't a deterrent--- that having the death penalty does not decrease the number of violent murders and rapes. (Indeed, in such states where death penalties are routinely carried out, the incidence is a little higher.)

People who commit violent crimes don't think "Oh, if I'm caught, I'd be killed". They usually aren't thinking at all at that point.

In 18th century England, you could get killed for just casual thievery, and yet the crime rate was far in excess of our own. The death penalty is useless as a deterrent. There are dozens of studies that show this.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

M. Adams: hi. Moderator here. When's your birthday? I'm just asking because I'm not sure you got the point of this topic, which is to practice debating skills. You aren't supposed to argue what you think is the right answer; you argue for a position based on your birthday (see the original question). The idea is to practice debating without getting emotionally or personally involved.

If that's a problem for you, feel free to start a new, non-Debate Club topic on the subject. Otherwise, tell us when your birthday when you start answering the question, okay? Thanks.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent - except to that person. I support it because I think it's justice.

In the case that went to the supreme court, he seemed to understand about death and that he had to kill this person so she couldn't tell the police who raped her. That seems to reflect understanding of the crime and its possible consequences.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Quick off topic question: do you guys even want to bother with the debate club anymore? I didn't come up with a question this week or last week because most of the people who respond don't seem to care about the actual exercise. This is way more moderating than I really feel like doing, but if people aren't going to go along with the rules, then the exercise is completely pointless.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

I think it will work, Beth. Just give it a little bit of time. Sometimes folks just forget. My own off-topic post above was partly the result of that (and part genuine offer).

I do think, however, we might start with some less emotionally charged, but interesting topic, to get the flow going (not that I can provide you with any good examples right now, of course . . .).

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

I think the problem with debate club is that people aren't really using it to engage each other. People will post arguments to support their side, but then it seems like there's not much response to anyone else's posts, which makes it kind of boring.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

I think we should vote on the overall charisma of the poster. I hear it's the latest trend in BB chic.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Heh.

Seriously, I think I will make the debate club a semi-private area on the new forum. Not an exclusive one -- anyone who wants to can get in -- but we'll make people request admission, so we don't get wandering trolls, and anyone who thinks the debating idea is dumb can just avoid those threads.

Jen, I noticed the lack of back-and-forth too, but I was hoping that as things went on, people would get more comfortable with the format and loosen up a bit.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Beth... if this -does- go to semi-private, please let "observers", if you will, be included. I may post my small and humble, yet infallibly correct, posts on other threads only, but I greatly enjoy reading the Debate Club postings. I'm too agreeable to post... as I take heart with -most- of the opinions (save rudeboy et al.)

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

I'd like to keep them, although I think you might save yourself some trouble by giving yourself stronger permission to just flat delate posts that don't meet the requirement (ie 1st post in a thread, state your 'side' and then continue any follow-up by keeping to that side) without explanation.

It'll be easier once you have your new forum set up, where you can keep a post available explaining the 'rules'. At that point, participants should be responsible for following them without your coaxing them along, or stick to the other threads.

And I also agree with the desire for more interaction.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Note too, Cory, that this trend may also involve the public execution of the mentally disabled. I might get my illustrative examples after all!

(Beth, did I just get booted from your debate club?)

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001