I think that if you set out to do well on a test specifically designed to test whether your qualified to be killed, then you are by definition, too stupid to not be mentally retarded, case closed, next defendant please.
I think if your definition were adopted, it would mean the effective end of the death penalty in this country. Everyone who took such a test would either be judged retarded by a low test score, or judged retarded by a high test score under the Shalmanese standard. Either way, they would be ineligible for execution.
I don’t think that’s a terrible result, but I’m not sure that’s the right way to go to get there.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I think if your definition were adopted, it would mean the effective end of the death penalty in this country. Everyone who took such a test would either be judged retarded by a low test score, or judged retarded by a high test score under the Shalmanese standard. Either way, they would be ineligible for execution. QUOTE]
Ahhh, but I think that is what he is plotting for! The bastard is probably so smart that he scored that way on purpose to throw the legal system into a tizzy and not only get himself free from execution, but everyone in his state too. Reverse psychology is a powerful weapon.
Er … no, I’ll leave that to a bigger smartass than I. 
Besides I always do the same thing and notice it after I post. :smack:
Help me out here. Exactly what is being pitted?
On the other hand, I’m sure you would concede that there are some people who really would legitimately fall below a level a basic competency or ability to understand what’s going on. So doesn’t there have to be a method for determining competency? IQ scores- in a vaccuum- may seem to be to easy to tank intentionally but IQ tests ar not administered in a vaccuum, they are administered by trained psychologists/phychiatrists who can tell if you’re cheating.
There may be some borderline cases who it would be difficult to tell about, but if it’s borderline, I say err on the side of protecting innocent human life, not the gratification of public bloodlust.
I’m reminded of the story of a retarded man who was executed in Arkansas while Bill Clinton was governor (whose support of the death penalty- and this story in particular- represent some of the thinks I respect least about the man). When they came to take him out to the death chamber, he had not finished his meal, but he said that was ok, he’d finish it when he got back. Killing mentally retarded people degrades us as a culture.
Of course, but I’d solve the problem by removing the death penalty as an option completely.
True. But so does killing other people.
I agree on both points.
It’s when you do something to piss someone off, and they “take” you to the BBQ “Pit” to call you goat-felching baby-fucker. Hence the present-tense verb phrase “being pitted”.
The speculation that the reason his score has risen is due to the intellectual stimulation provided by being involved in his own defense for years has, in my opinion, some merit to it. Does one judge by where he was when the crime was committed or now?
Easily solved by simply abolishing the death penalty.
Thanks, Jim. Or is it Jerry? David?