So, the Supreme Court has decided it’s wrong to execute mentally retarded persons, in a 6-3 decision. I think I’ll go check out who the three are that voted againt. Oh, that’s right, I don’t have to check. I already know that it’s that unholy trinity of Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist.
So are you saying the vote was good or bad?
Well, if I think the three are unholy, wouldn’t you conclude that I think their voting that it is ok to kill the mentally retarded is reprehensible?
I think this thread belongs in the Pit where you may properly give vent to your bile.
Have they given us any hints as to how they intend to define retarded?
Will this be the new insanity defense? After all OJ was retarded.
Is it bile or moral revulsion at three justices who think executing mentally retarded people is a good idea?
In defense of the three unholy individuals, they were probably against the ruling because it could be a loop hole from the death penalty.
FYI: I’m actually against the death penalty, and agree with the ruling. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here to rationalize why they chose that.
Watch how many deathrow inmates suddenly become ‘retarded’
Do you think that would actually be easy to pull off?
:rolleyes:
Has the study on just how far Thomas has had his tongue up Scalia’s ass been published anywhere yet?
If they aren’t smart enough to put to death for their crime why are they smart enough get a life sentence?
If someone is truely retarded should they spend life in prison for a crime? Why?
If you can justify giving someone a life sentence then I think you can justify the death sentence if the crime warrents it. (Unless you are against the death penalty in all cases.)
Not against the death penalty and I’m all for executing retarded people or anyone else who murders people. The argument that a retarded person didn’t understand thier actions and shouldn’t be held responsible for them is thoroughly ridiculous. If they didn’t understand thier actions, then locking them up until they die of natural causes is a surer form of torture than a quick death. Ever see a puppy that really doesn’t know why he’s in trouble? Same principle. Why lock up a retarded person who cannot be rehabilitated, cannot produce anything useful, and does not understand the reason for beng punished? Fry 'em up and serve 'em for dinner.
Not against the death penalty and I’m all for executing retarded people or anyone else who murders people. The argument that a retarded person didn’t understand thier actions and shouldn’t be held responsible for them is thoroughly ridiculous. If they didn’t understand thier actions, then locking them up until they die of natural causes is a surer form of torture than a quick death. Ever see a puppy that really doesn’t know why he’s in trouble? Same principle. Why lock up a retarded person who cannot be rehabilitated, cannot produce anything useful, and does not understand the reason for beng punished? Fry 'em up and serve 'em for dinner.
I think it can be argued that the person is a still a danger to society or himself.
(note:IANAL, nor have I read the ruling) But I’m pretty sure it’s related to this quote from Courttv.com
I guess I perceive hipocratsy in the above statement and that is my problem. (The Court TV quote not you Stuffy)
If someone lacks the intelligence to fully understand his crime and be punished to the full extent of the law then why should we “punish” him at all?
Shouldn’t a mentally retarded person be offered help, rehabilitation, and training? If they are a danger to society they should be removed from society, but is prison the place for them? If they don’t understand their crimes should they be treated like criminals?
If you think that the mentally retarded should be treated like criminals when they commit a crime then I can’t see excluding them from the death penalty. If you don’t feel that the mentally retarded should be treated like criminals then this ruling is a “feel good” move that doesn’t come close to fixing the problem.
If you are against the death penalty in any situation then I can understand how this ruling might make you happy, but it will only help a select few and also doesn’t fix the problem.
I agree with your prison stance In Conceivable and ftr, I’m more or less on the fence regarding the Death Penalty. I don’t have an answer for yuo though.
A reporter on Court TV (James Curts) just said that the idea that there is an arbitrary cut-off point for mental retardation is ludicrous. I agree. But does he deny that there are some profoundly retarded people? And could he justify sentencing such people to death? I would think that any reasonable person could not. The tricky part for such “reasonable persons” is determining how retarded one must be to not deserve the death sentence. And I am by no means saying that this would be an easy, cut-and-dried decision. But does the difficulty of such a decision mean no attempt should even me made to address it? Would Mr. Curtis callously condemn a Downs Syndrome person to death (in the admittedly rare chance that such a person would ever commit murder)? But I hope you get my point. Discretion is needed in most, perhaps all, sentences that our courts hand down.
(Why do they call it the death penalty, anyway? You never hear of, say, a burglar being given a 10 year penalty. Could it be that “death sentence” suggests a certain finality that proponents of it would rather not project?)
I didn’t insinuate that it would be easy to pull off. I was just tossing that out there.
Easy for you and me? No, probably not.
Prison is full of con men (and women, to give equal time) who have access to all the resources they want to research and study mental illness, all the time to practice deception and feign symptoms and nothing better to do with their time but to waste taxpayers money and time tying up the court systems attempting to save their worthless asses tyring to convince a judge they are retarded.
I completly agree with the statement. You watch how many death-row denizens will claim to be retarded.
Why do we kill people to teach kids that killing people is wrong? So people who kill people will never kill people again.