Question about Intellectual Disability and death penalty

Post Reply New Topic

I did a research that it is unconstitutional to give capital punishments to people with Intellectual Disability. The problem is that Intellectual Disability can be moderate to mild.


Source:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12222149/



Symptoms of Intellectual Disability:

Issues with problem solving, logic, reasoning, learning, adaptive functioning.

No specific IQ tests are required, it appears in the course of developmental stage. It's a neurodevelopmental disorder.

People with mild Intellectual Disabilities know right from wrong, and can assist in their own defence.

People with moderate intellectual disabilities know right from wrong, but have diminished capacity, but can assist in their own defence.

People with severe to profound Intellectual disability, can understand right from wrong, but have diminished responsibility, and be incompetent to stand trial.


I have milder problems with some memories, learning, some problem solving, and adaptive functioning.

I can make logical arguments, and give answers in specific subject that I know about.


Hypothetically, lets say my plan was to be a serial killer, but I got cought after two murders, because I have hard time hiding the bodies in the right place in order not to get caught, because I have milder representation of Intellectual Disability. Now, I am intelligent, but have milder representation of Intellectual Disability.

Question, why should I not get the same capital punishment that a person without Intellectual Disability convicted of capital offenses get , just because I have milder representation of Intellectual Disability?

Here is another thing to address. Not having Intellectual Disability, doesn't mean that you don't have neurodevelopmental disorders.

But when Intellectual Disability is more severe, then it should be unconstitutional to give capital punishments.

But it is considered unconstitutional to execute people with Intellectual Disability. But, it's just broad, because Intellectual Disability can be mild.




I have mixed feelings about the death penalty anyways, and questioning if it is ethical to use death penalty, because four percent of people in death row are innocent. Sometimes, wrong people get capital punishment.


Source:

https://innocenceproject.org/national-a ... -innocent/


Also people with with mental disorders that causes delusions and hallucinations should be protected from capital punishment, unless there is proof that they know right from wrong, and can assist in their own defence.

Just don't do anything where you could potentially get the death penalty....

The question I asked is hypothetical.

I am not going to do anything drastic, I want to enjoy my life normally.

They seem to determine "disability" mostly via IQ. It's very imperfect----but that's what they do.

Almost always, someone is not executed if their IQ is under 70.

Additionally, if someone is found to be something like "not responsibie due to mental disease or defect," or something along those lines, they don't execute them. They usually put them in an institution for the "criminally insane."

The problem is that IQ tests is no longer required to diagnose Intellectual Disabilities. And just doing IQ test is not enough, especially when it comes to mild Intellectual Disabilities, but IQ tests can be useful to measure Intellectual Disabilities that is more severe.

The better way to find out if a person has Intellectual Disability is by symptoms that listed above.

Symptoms of Intellectual Disability:

* Memory problems, problem solving, learning, logic, reasoning and adaptive functioning in severity.

But, I understand what you mean.

I will post an article of what I am talking about

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... disability

I agree with you—but people in the prison/legal industry aren’t exactly enlightened people. They tend to use old-fashioned methods.

That is not good, I hope that they stay up to date with the current diagnostic criteria for Intellectual Disability, because it's more accurate, and another problem is that Intellectual Disability can be mild, and and this subgroup of people with Intellectual Disabilities can understand how the legal system works. That is why I made an argument, if we are going to put people without Intellectual Disabilities to death row, then we should put people with mild Intellectual Disabilities to death row, because they also know right from wrong, don't have diminished capacity and can assist in their own defense, or we don't put anyone in death row, and or we make it unconstitutional to put people to death row with Intellectual Disabilities that are more severe.

People with mental disorders that causes psychosis should also be protected from capital punishment, unless there is evidence that they know right from wrong. Because, people can have delusions and hallucinations and still know right from wrong, unless those delusions and hallucinations was related to criminal behavior.

The only people, except in very rare cases, who get executed, are people who have committed multiple murders, or who have committed an especially gruesome murder.

Most people convicted of murder do not get executed.

I've noticed in the criminal court system that it seems like you are more likely to be sentenced to death if you have a mental illness or low IQ.

It's naive to think people with an IQ under 70 can't get executed but each state is allowed to define who qualifies for a low IQ. The problem is they use junk science and have a bias view about intellectual impairments and they will discredit their medical and school records that to show they have a low IQ.

Executions happen in less than half the states.

And most of those states rarely execute people.

New York State hasn’t executed somebody since 1963.

Texas stands out as the state which executes the most people—more than twice as many as the state with the second-most executions.

People who have mental illnesses get executed—but very few with intellectual disabilities do.

I find the death penalty to be barbaric.

That's why I am against it as well because of how it is used and it seems to only target the vulnerable. In the state of Texas, one with a low IQ can be executed if they are very dangerous to the public. The judges exact words for Oliver Cruz were "he has a low IQ which is what makes him to be very dangerous" and this was a justification for putting him to death in the year 2000. And his accomplice got a life sentence and he had a normal IQ. Go figure. I see a pattern here.

I agree!

The better argument against the death penalty is the 4 % of people in death row are innocent, and another problem is there are situations where people do commit serious felonies, but don't deserve death penalty.

I question if it is ethical to use death penalty, especially in those two arguments that I made, and I linked the study from the innocents projects as well. Another issue is that a person without Intellectual Disability can have some kind of diminish capacity, but gets overlooked.

Conclusion, I am on the same page as both of you.

This should be noted. Execution is rare and reserved for the worst of crimes. Even someone with a low IQ will struggle to tell a jury they didn't understand that multiple murders or torturing someone to death was wrong.

I think lower IQ people might be more likely to commit some types of murders than others, mainly impulsive murders born about by frustration which they might genuinely underestimate the severity of. These are often murders that are least likely to result in execution anyway.

Back to sadistic and/or multiple murders. They not only understand the severity of that level of brutality but they should get a very hard time as a consequence but not execution. In exchange for their lives they have an absolute dogs live in prison (not a more cozy mental institution) until they die.

The guy who done the Port Arthur shooting is a good example of the types of people I'm talking about.

The problem is that no IQ tests is required to diagnose Intellectual Disability, but the courts still use the outdated methods of determining Intellectual Disability, and I did a research that the state determines if the verdict has Intellectual Disability.

It's not the state's business ether, only qualified professionals can determine if a person has mental health, neurodevelopmental disorders or not.

When to comes to severe to profound Intellectual Disability, you could know right from wrong, but your capacity will be diminished and be incompetent to stand trial. What I am saying is that talking to people with severe to profound Intellectual Disability like adults, they might not understand you, unless you explain to them what they have done wrong slowly, and with therapy.

More accurate way to determine Intellectual Disability:

* Memory problems, problem solving, learning, logic, reasoning, adaptive functioning in severity

People with intellectual impairments can know right from wrong but they might not have the mental compacity to understand the severity of it and they might still commit the crime because they want to please people and they might not have the impulse control to control it.

Think of how a child understands right from wrong, it's the same with an adult with a mental age of a child. I even saw a guest on Dr. Phil who shot his mom when he was ten. He knew it was wrong but his dad had manipulated him into doing it and he was obligated and it traumatized him and he lived with guilt. He did not get in trouble with the law, his dad did. Think if this happened to an adult with the intelligence of a 10 year old, he would be going to prison and to say they are very dangerous because of their low IQ is ableism when the adult who put them up to it is to blame. Yes the kid knew what he did was wrong but yet he also felt he had to do what his dad told him to do and he didn't have the emotional compacity to do anything about it. He felt trapped. Even teens can fall into this too because their brains are not fully developed yet which is why I don't believe in trying minors as adults. Why would I think someone with a intellectual impairment who knows right from wrong wouldn't do a crime if they have an intelligence of a child? I would also assume they have low compacity too for emotions and reasoning. And it wasn't surprising when I reads that people with lower IQs are more likely to get in trouble with the law. I would wonder what is the percentage of inmates in the US who have low IQs.

You made a good point, but I wanted to point out that people with mild Intellectual Disability know right from wrong, don't have diminished capacity and can assist in their own defence. With moderate Intellectual Disability, you have diminished capacity, but still can assist in your own defence, but with severe to profound Intellectual Disability, you have diminished capacity and incompetent to stand trial.