Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15063)	6/20/2002 12:16:56 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

For the sake of the discussion, which I've already had ten times on SI so am not going to enter lengthily again, tell me if you will include those who are chronically children as well as mentally children in the group you wish to execute. Okay with you to execute eight year olds, for example? Or just those who are mentally eight years old? Might as well get the similar categories (in terms of judgment, comprehension, ability to draw conclusions from experience, and impulse-control) together before we start.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15063)	6/20/2002 12:18:20 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I used to be the Death Penalty Campaign Coordinator for the Amnesty International chapter in my county.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15063)	6/20/2002 12:20:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I'll bite. I agree with you. I don't think executing the retarded is any more cruel or unusual than executing anyone else. I would prefer we have no death penalty but not because it is either cruel or unusual.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15063)	6/20/2002 12:29:28 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Why is it any more cruel to execute them than me? Why is it any different? <vbg> <Sorry, couldn't resist LOL> I'll take a shot at your more serious question. The criminal justice system we use has its roots primarily in English legal and moral concepts, including the concept that punishment derives its moral authority from the degree of moral culpability on the part of the defendant. This is where the insanity defense comes from, with its idea that one must appreciate the distinction between right and wrong in order to be criminally punished (although they can be caged to protect society, this is considered distinct from punishing them). Similarly, if one is "mentally retarded" by some definition, they cannot fully appreciate or understand what they are doing or whether it is wrong. Therefore, killing them for what they have done may not be morally appropriate. That is usually the reasoning applied to your question. Here is a summary of the Court's reasoning: The court used state laws as a barometer, but also went beyond them to look at why mentally retarded killers are different than killers of normal intelligence, and whether any wider social purpose is served by executing them. Executing mentally retarded people neither appropriately punishes the criminal nor serves as a deterrent to future crimes, the majority found. Many mentally retarded defendants know right from wrong, but they are more likely to act on impulse or to be swayed by others in a group, Stevens wrote. "Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability." Retarded people make bad witnesses, and may come off in court as unrepentant, Stevens wrote. "Mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution."

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15063)	6/20/2002 1:52:20 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Why is it any more cruel to execute them than me? State sanctioned killing is not a very good idea since it leads to rather arbitrary rules which do not have a direct societal benefit. The nation is not harmed because Charles Manson is in prison somewhere, while the death of Timothy McVeigh guarentees that we will not know further details of his associations and influences. It is hard to pick out a single classification such as mental retardation as special case, it will all be subjective in the end. TP

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15063)	6/21/2002 12:43:29 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Years ago in Ca we had a referendum to reinstate the death penalty. I was first going to vote in favor of reinstatement but as I walked into the voting booth, and saw the lever I suddenly realized that by pulling the lever on the "yes" vote, I was responsible for the death of someone...............I completely changed my mind and voted against reinstatement. Just because a democracy votes to kill someone they deem "sociopathic" doesn't mean it's OK..............the public is still trying to organize a lynch mob.............just a democratic lynch mob and I wonder how it can be considered COnstitutional in relation to the BIll of RIghts which protects the will of the minority against the will of the majority. A retarded person doesn't mature like the rest of us ( maybe it's a better state !!!). The mental age of reason they achieve is not beyond the age of grade school and their reality is often altered. They are clearly not making any rational decisions in relation to the ethical and moral code upon which our laws are based. The execution of a non-rational child with an altered reality is a bizarre action for any so-called civilized culture to allow or, in the worse case, support. Pat