07-15-2013, 03:31 PM
(07-14-2013, 12:06 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: How do you prove or disprove categorically that someone is truly mentally disabled or not?
Its like if someone says they have a bad back.
It is somewhat subjective, but consistent results rendered by the evaluations and testing of different doctors (with no vested interest) is typically considered the closest to objective measurement.
All of the government doctors who've evaluated Hill and tested him conclude that he is mentally disabled/retarded.
Even those who testified at his trial that they believed he was faking it, later testified that upon further evaluation, they found that not to be the case.
Warren Hill's IQ is 70. He has been found by a court to be mentally retarded.
The Supreme Court ruled that mentally disabled/retarded persons can not be executed. But, it's up to the individual states to set their own standards for implementing that stricture.
Georgia set the strictest standard in the country: "a prisoner appealing a death sentence on grounds of mental retardation must prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he is in fact retarded." No other state has such a strict standard; other states typically require "a preponderance of evidence" pointing to mental disability.
Today, Hill's attorneys are trying another strategy to save his life; objecting to the secrecy of the drugs which will be used in his lethal injection and contending that they may cause suffering consistent with cruel and unusual punishment. It's an interesting story/strategy; here's that story:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...ug/277776/