02-20-2011, 02:13 AM
From the ajc:
"Georgia is the only state in the country that requires a defendant raising a mental retardation claim to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden-of-proof threshold. In June, in a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said this standard increases the risk a death-penalty defendant will erroneously be found not to be mentally retarded. This violates the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment, the ruling said."
From a related story, also ajc:
Warren Hill sits on Georgia's death row, even though a state court judge has found him mentally retarded, which the nation's highest court says bars him from execution.
Hill's problem is that he was found to be mentally retarded under the lowest legal threshold but not the toughest -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though Georgia became the first state in the country over 20 years ago to ban executions of mentally retarded people, it is now the only state that sets the highest barrier for defendants raising such claims to escape execution.
Among states with the death penalty, 22 require defendants raising mental retardation claims to prove it by the lowest threshold, a preponderance of the evidence. Four states have adopted a tougher test, the clear and convincing evidence standard. Three states have not set a burden of proof.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not issue an immediate ruling. About 10 Georgia death-row inmates who failed to prove mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt could receive new hearings if the court finds Georgia's standard unconstitutional.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mentally retarded individuals, because of their disabilities in reasoning, judgment and self control, do not act with the same level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.
State attorney Beth Burton refused to concede the possibility that mentally retarded inmates will be executed in Georgia. She told the court that when the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of the mentally retarded, it left it up to the states to decide how to evaluate retardation claims.
This prompted questions from judges who wondered whether it would be acceptable if Georgia made it all but impossible for a defendant to prevail in a mental retardation claim.
What about a law that says only defendants with IQs below 30 can be found to be mentally retarded, asked Judge Stanley Marcus. An IQ of about 70 is generally considered to be the upper limit for a diagnosis of mental retardation."
So, how stupid should you have to be to get a pass? An IQ of 70-50 is enough to read basic words, write your name, speak properly, and do basic math (cognitive age of about 12). Moderate retardation (adaptive IQ of 49-35) is more severe and you won't be able to live on your own and support yourself, but can function in society doing repetitive tasks (bagging groceries, even though you may eat a booger on occasion). Below that, you are pretty much fucked and will never have the intellectual ability much greater than a 2 or 3 year old.
If you are not at least moderately retarded, should you get a pass? Stupid people kill others all the time. A good 20%-40% of impoverished people function around 70 IQ. That's why they live the way they do. They, in turn, bear stupid children. BUT, they know not to kill. If you can't write a paragraph, should you be allowed to kill and not be executed?
"Georgia is the only state in the country that requires a defendant raising a mental retardation claim to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden-of-proof threshold. In June, in a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said this standard increases the risk a death-penalty defendant will erroneously be found not to be mentally retarded. This violates the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment, the ruling said."
From a related story, also ajc:
Warren Hill sits on Georgia's death row, even though a state court judge has found him mentally retarded, which the nation's highest court says bars him from execution.
Hill's problem is that he was found to be mentally retarded under the lowest legal threshold but not the toughest -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though Georgia became the first state in the country over 20 years ago to ban executions of mentally retarded people, it is now the only state that sets the highest barrier for defendants raising such claims to escape execution.
Among states with the death penalty, 22 require defendants raising mental retardation claims to prove it by the lowest threshold, a preponderance of the evidence. Four states have adopted a tougher test, the clear and convincing evidence standard. Three states have not set a burden of proof.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not issue an immediate ruling. About 10 Georgia death-row inmates who failed to prove mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt could receive new hearings if the court finds Georgia's standard unconstitutional.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mentally retarded individuals, because of their disabilities in reasoning, judgment and self control, do not act with the same level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.
State attorney Beth Burton refused to concede the possibility that mentally retarded inmates will be executed in Georgia. She told the court that when the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of the mentally retarded, it left it up to the states to decide how to evaluate retardation claims.
This prompted questions from judges who wondered whether it would be acceptable if Georgia made it all but impossible for a defendant to prevail in a mental retardation claim.
What about a law that says only defendants with IQs below 30 can be found to be mentally retarded, asked Judge Stanley Marcus. An IQ of about 70 is generally considered to be the upper limit for a diagnosis of mental retardation."
So, how stupid should you have to be to get a pass? An IQ of 70-50 is enough to read basic words, write your name, speak properly, and do basic math (cognitive age of about 12). Moderate retardation (adaptive IQ of 49-35) is more severe and you won't be able to live on your own and support yourself, but can function in society doing repetitive tasks (bagging groceries, even though you may eat a booger on occasion). Below that, you are pretty much fucked and will never have the intellectual ability much greater than a 2 or 3 year old.
If you are not at least moderately retarded, should you get a pass? Stupid people kill others all the time. A good 20%-40% of impoverished people function around 70 IQ. That's why they live the way they do. They, in turn, bear stupid children. BUT, they know not to kill. If you can't write a paragraph, should you be allowed to kill and not be executed?