Way to go Texas!

[normiss 643]

Shame really.
I thought life meant something.
Apparently not to all.

[airdvr 200]

It does, but it means more to the person who has it taken from them than the person who does the taking. I don't know the specifics of this case. I have a pretty firm grip on the world of the MR. I also know defense atty's will grab at any straw.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[normiss 643]

Prosecution can be just as grabby.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Executed a retarded man

Pretty flat bell curve there if you ask me.

Well, we did give the Old Chap 20 years prior to the Happy Juice. I think we were rather good sports considering.

[normiss 643]

Yep.
The state of Texas accepted without question the testimony of a codefendant who was also charged in the crime lead to a conviction. It scares me to think this doesn't bother people.
It's a sad system when an unsubstantiated accusation by a fellow criminal takes away your life. Also amazed that people suddenly trust those criminals when they want to.
Wonder what the ex is up to these days....

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

So stupid is the new retarded?


Retarded people don't abduct folks.

That is painting with an awfully broad brush.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

as for this specific case - does the IQ of the criminal matter at all? my criteria would be the willingness and likelihood of them repeating the crime.

According to the Supreme Court it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally retarded person. See Atkins v. Virginia from 2002.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[normiss 643]

It is.
The Supremes left it up to the states to establish what that means.
Texas apparently used invisible ink.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Since that article was CNN, I did some more research. It appears the only test that showed him mentally deficient was later discounted based on multiple other tests that showed otherwise. The guy was married, convicted twice of burglary, had spent time in prison, was dealing drugs, and was convicted of beating, kidnapping and murdering the guy that set him up on his latest drug charges.

Just a few irrelevant facts that CNN accidentally missed.

Which or those things disqualify him from being mentally retarded?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Channman 2]

> "It scares me to think this doesn't bother people"

No need to be scared. If you find yourself in Texas and someone comes up to you and beats you to death, we will do everything within our power to bring your killer to justice.

Just let us know in writing prior, so that your wishes of life in prison without the possibility of parole can be considered, or otherwise we just might lean on the death penalty.

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, damn your wishes, we’re going to inject your killer with the Happy Juice any way.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

It is.
The Supremes left it up to the states to establish what that means.
Texas apparently used invisible ink.

I don't think it is quite that ambiguous, although I am open to further clarification. Mental Retardation [sic] now Intellectual Disability, is well defined and has three prongs. All three prongs have to be met:

1. Significantly subaverage IQ--this is usually defined as below 70 or two standard deviations below the norm--although I have seen people with IQs above that diagnosed.

2. Limitations in adaptive functioning. There are quite a few instruments to screen for this as well and well established criteria on those instruments.

3. Onset before the age of 18.

Sounds like Texas prosecutors dispute that he met #1 (based on conflicting IQ tests) and that he met #2 (though based on what exactly is unclear). #3 can be quite difficult to establish in some cases, especially if the person has been out of school long enough that school records have been destroyed.

The method of screening and evaluation of evidence is a different issue. In Virginia they have determined that experts administer the tests but that the jury actually determines if the person meets the criteria. That led to Atkins (in the Atkins v. Virginia case referenced above) being executed.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

What are your thoughts on non-Christians who support the death penalty? Isn’t singling out Christians on the death penalty like singling out juvenile black males on crime? Sure, it can be used to paint a picture, and it’s not that there aren’t juvenile black males who commit crimes, but it is only a piece of the puzzle that kinda looks the other way on every other facet of the population?

What’s the topic? Is it capital punishment? Is it Christianity? Is it the impact of Christian beliefs on fair trial and capital punishment of retards in Texas? Because I see attacks on Texas, due process, capital punishment, Texas and Christians all in the same post using one case that even the attorney who represented him disagrees with the whuffo press allegations.

I’m not a Christian. But I don’t mind them. I’m not philosophically opposed to capital punishment but I am opposed to how it is being dispensed. I like Texas and Texans have typically been the salt of the earth when I’ve been there and interacted with them.

Interestingly, in the last week the California Supreme Court issued some death penalty decisions that seem to do a good job of adding to the things that will get you sentenced to death.

(1) Go to your old school with a shotgun and start killing kids. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S035190.PDF
(2) Bludgeon and strangle the nice old lady across the street for Christmas presents for your kids (and maybe some money for crack) http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S081918.PDF
(3) Murder a 4 year old child by abuse and fundamental torture http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S067353.PDF
(4) Shoot a cop and finish him off with three rounds, no matter how swell of a guy you are when you aren’t tweaking http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S077033.PDF

Even the famously liberal Ninth Circuit found last week that if you have an IQ of 88, history of seizures, brain damage, etc., and kill a four year-old kid in exchange for $250 (which you negotiated up from $150), it’s all right for Arizona to kill you for it. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/08/01/11-99002.pdf

I myself do not think that the death penalty should be given for these. I would limit it to somebody murdering another or causing another to be murdered while incarcerated.

I think it preferable in all cases to state a position and support it rather than try to state the other side’s position and attack it. It’s not an attack that way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,473]

What does "retarded" mean?

Does it mean he's not responsible for his own actions? In that case he should be in an institution where he can be cared for and where he can't harm anyone. Shame on his parents, doctors and past legal advocates for letting him out into society at all (or letting him back out to society after his previous arrest.)

Does it mean he's just really, really dumb? Then he gets no special consideration. Being dumb is not a valid defense to the charge of murder.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

What does "retarded" mean?

Does it mean he's not responsible for his own actions? In that case he should be in an institution where he can be cared for and where he can't harm anyone. Shame on his parents, doctors and past legal advocates for letting him out into society at all (or letting him back out to society after his previous arrest.)

Does it mean he's just really, really dumb? Then he gets no special consideration. Being dumb is not a valid defense to the charge of murder.

Is your answer really that we should just throw people into institutions? Do you have any experience with institutions or the people who have been institutionalized?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,473]

>Is your answer really that we should just throw people into institutions?

People who are not responsible for their own actions? Absolutely. Keep in mind what that means. They could come over and kill someone in your family - and it would not be their fault.

>Do you have any experience with institutions or the people who have
>been institutionalized?

No. Use jail if you prefer.

[normiss 643]

"To the extent there is serious disagreement about the execution of mentally retarded offenders, it is in determining which offenders are in fact retarded... Not all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus. As was our approach in Ford v. Wainwright, with regard to insanity, we leave to the State the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences."

Of Mice And Men

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In that case he should be in an institution where he can be cared for and where he can't harm anyone.

Gitmo's already set up for that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

> "It scares me to think this doesn't bother people"

No need to be scared. If you find yourself in Texas and someone comes up to you and beats you to death, we will do everything within our power to bring your killer to justice.

Well, they'll put someone to death, anyway.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,473]

>Gitmo's already set up for that.

If you prefer. I'd rather have them somewhere where there is at least the potential that they can be treated.

[normiss 643]

Wilson's mental retardation was undisputed. The only expert to ever examine him was a court-appointed doctor. The fact that Texas was able to overcome this -- was able to execute him without ever having to dispute the findings of that expert -- shows how empty is the promise of Atkins. A mentally retarded black man in Texas: What chance did Wilson ever have? Evidently, none. What Texas did to Wilson last night -- what the Supreme Court allowed it to do to Wilson -- is beneath the dignity of the rule of law.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

So stupid is the new retarded?


Retarded people don't abduct folks.

That is painting with an awfully broad brush.

this comment in a thread where all "Texans" and all "Christians" are being bucketed.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,473]

>Wilson's mental retardation was undisputed.

OK. What does that mean? Is he not responsible for his own actions? Or just really, really dumb?

[normiss 643]

That the US Supreme Court has clearly stated we are to not execute them.
How did you miss that?

[billvon 2,473]

>That the US Supreme Court has clearly stated we are to not execute them.

OK. Now - what does "retarded" mean? As in a definition. Does it mean not responsible for their actions? Does it mean really dumb?

[normiss 643]

Depends.

Which US State are you in?
In what regard are you asking? Criminal? Civil? Human?

Like I said. Depends.

In a death penalty case, the Supremes left it to the states.
As I previously posted, Texas has a multi-layered approach that thereby eliminates the Supreme ruling.

Welcome to Texas.