Capital Punishment: The Stupidity Defense
In the ongoing and ever-contentious capital punishment debate, few have noticed that the State of California - in the footsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court - has carved out its own special exception for those with a low IQ. Burt Prelutsky has. by Burt Prelutsky
Back in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mentally retarded killers could not be executed, no matter how vicious their crimes. The argument that apparently prevailed with a majority of the justices was that the accused would be unable to assist in his own defense. At the time, I recall thinking that in a long history of dubious Court decisions, this one certainly ranked among the very worst.
Inasmuch as murderers aren’t accused of being ignorant, only evil, I saw no reason to take their IQs into consideration. The question shouldn’t have been whether they were qualified to argue on their own behalf, but whether they were guilty of taking a human life in cold blood. As ludicrous as it sounds, it would make as much sense to suggest that retarded people shouldn’t have their appendixes removed because they aren’t qualified to assist the surgeon during the operation.
I suspect that Hitler is responsible for this misguided compassion. However, there is a world of difference between the Nazis exterminating retarded people in order to keep the Aryan race pure and executing those who commit murder.
We are five years down the slippery slope, and the California Supreme Court has now decided that a defendant may be spared the death penalty because he is mentally deficient in one area, even if his IQ falls within the normal range.
The seven justices, in a unanimous opinion, said courts may give greater weight to one measurement of IQ over another and that the appropriate way to measure intellectual functioning may vary from one case to another. In short, any judge who is personally opposed to capital punishment now has greater latitude than he had before to nullify a death sentence.
John Philipsborn, the fellow who represented a group of criminal-defense lawyers in taking the case to the California Supreme Court, gloated that the ruling would affect at least 28 prisoners currently on Death Row and at least eight defendants who are claiming mental retardation prior to their murder trials.
The decision was first and foremost a victory for Jorge Junior Vidal, who had been found guilty of the murder, torture and sodomy of 17-year-old Eric Jones in 2001. Apparently, Vidal thought Jones had tried to steal his car. So, while Vidal was capable of not only driving an automobile, but acting as the teenager’s judge, jury and executioner, the seven dwarfs on the Court determined that he fell short when it came to being a defense attorney.
Quite honestly, I never fathomed the logic behind the insanity defense. If you’re so completely out of your mind that you don’t believe there’s anything wrong with committing rape, murder or pedophilia, what is the point in keeping you alive? But as cockeyed as the insanity defense is, the stupidity defense makes an even bigger mockery of the legal system.
The only logical purpose of the ruling, so far as I can see, is that if any of the seven justices of the California Supreme Court ever murder anyone, they’ve now made certain they can’t be executed for the crime.
Burt Prelutsky is the author of Conservatives Are From Mars (Liberals Are From San Francisco).
I am not opposed to the death penalty in principal, but find its application appalling. Leaving the lives of our fellow citizens in the hands of “those who would be governor” (prosecutors) is a betrayal of them. If we eliminate the death penalty, we would not have such tortured interpretations by its proponents pro and con. Our law is suffering by the existence of such contentiousness.
I don’t care if the criminal is a retard of the trisomy-21 order. If they murder premeditated and in cold blood, and are found guilty by a jury in a court of law they should be put to death by whatever means necessary and most expedient. There is no grey area in this matter. Liberals continue to pervert and mock our justice system.
While I am for the death penalty I find the following metaphor indicative of a weak grasp of the Justices’ decision, “As ludicrous as it sounds, it would make as much sense to suggest that retarded people shouldn’t have their appendixes removed because they aren’t qualified to assist the surgeon during the operation”.
When one has their appendix removed the patient is unconscious and completely at the mercy of the skill and care of those who are performing the operation. When one is tried, one’s testimony, both in court, to the investigators and your discussions with your lawyer, all have a large bearing on most cases. So, the relationship between the accused and his lawyer is much different then the one between patient and surgeon.
That said, if you have the mental facility to premeditate a murder and then execute it… well then you should have the facility for paying for your crime.
Some time back, when I was lawyering, I remarked to a fellow lawyer as we exited the criminal court house, “our clients are so goddamned stupid”. “If they weren’t,” he replied, “we’d be out of business.” Made sense then, still does.
“Life is Sacred from the Moment of Conception,to take a Life is an Unforgivable Sin”, Dr. Jack Shepard
If only DNA reviews didn’t discover so many “false positive” verdicts. Shouldn’t there be IQ tests for juries? And wouldn’t a panel of a retard’s peers be 12 retards?
What’s really crazy is the idea that mental retardation or total insanity is a legal defense for any crime. Just what is the point? If an individual doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong, he ought to learn the difference between freedom and liberty, life and death. It’s this
sort of nonsense that keeps the pro and condeath penalty arguments endless. And pointless.
Dear Mr.Foland: I couldn’t agree more. For the life of me, I can’t imagine why everyone doesn’t see this as clearly as you and I. Regards, Burt Prelutsky
I believe in capital punishment.
If someone raped amd murdered your mother would you feel the should serve the ultimate price
If someone lack the mental capacity to understnad their actions, then they should be provided with medical care, not executed. It seems as though the people writing this have no compassion at all, human life should not be extinguished with such lack of thought. I find the final comment, “The only logical purpose of the ruling, so far as I can see, is that if any of the seven justices of the California Supreme Court ever murder anyone, they’ve now made certain they can’t be executed for the crime.” extremely offensive-it undermines the entire issue. I have relations who are mentally handicapped, and though they are not violent they lack control both physically and emotionally. Their handicaps are mild, and I could easily see how, in another individual with more extreme difficulties, this could be amplified to the point of murder. I reject the idea that someone with the mnetal capacity of a fourth grader should be sentenced to the same fate as someone with a fully developed moral compass. if we were to go on this basis, we will soon be executing children. I am opposed to the death penalty in general, because I feel that it is a cop-out and, not knowing where an individuals soul goes after death, we should force criminals who commit heinous crimes to remain incarcerated as long as possible in order to contemplate their actions, however the execution of the mentally handicapped is something I consider esspecially offensive. Though I respect the opinions of those who previously posted on this article, I do not find them valid.
Firstly, you don’t understand the concept of insanity, do you? Schizoprenics are perfectly capable of understanding the difference beetwenn ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, as far as I am aware. But they are not capable of determining ‘fantasy’ (they merely imagined it) from ‘reality’.
As someone who has some experience of psychiatric illness I ask you to consider some moral choices an insane person may face:
Is it legal to kill a robot sent back from the future to destroy humanity?
It is legal to kill people in self defence or the defense of others sometimes in the CIA, the military (current, past, and future wars), the police force etc.
If somehow, you come to the belief that the goverment is secretly cloning Hitler, what should you do to stop them?
If you believed you were an actor portaying a villain in a movie, there would be murder scenes invoved, right? Since you wouldn’t really be killng anybody, you are harming no-one and commiting no crime.
What if there was no such thing as death, there would be no such thing as murder?
How do you know whether you have confused a real crime with a dream or something you saw on TV or read about? There are people who have merely seen murders on TV and confessed to them, thinking they have comiited the crime!
If human hosts have been infected with alien DNA or symbionts and they are attempting to spread the virus, what about the daner they present to other people (and it’s your job to protect the earth, as a member of an ultra-secret goverment taskforce).
The person you are killing could be a demon or ghost from an alternate plane of existence.
Any suggestions on what to do if any of his happens?
i find it appalling how the government is acting =p