Posted on 02/09/2010 1:23:57 PM PST by goods
The case of Martin Grossman is gaining national attention. Grossman, in 1984 was a 19-year-old drug-addicted high-school drop-out with a juvenile record for trespassing. He and a friend, Thanye Taylor, drove to an isolated nature reserve to fire a found handgun. A wildlife officer stopped them, searched their car and confiscated the gun. Martin,who is reported to have an IQ of 77, panicked and began pleading with the officer not to report him as he would be in violation of his probation. When she reached for her radio a struggle ensued, which resulted in the officer reaching for her own gun, whereupon Martin panicked, snatched her gun and shot her. A psychiatrist who evaluated him concluded, from his psychological and medical condition, that he could not have formed the intent to kill. Taylor served less than three years in prison while Martin was sentenced to death.
Mr. Grossman has been on death row for 25 years.
The petition argues that the death sentence meted out to him is disproportionate in the extreme and that his defense was inadequate. Only one percent of murder sentences end in capital punishment, crimes commonly referred to as “the worst of the worst.”
The petition further argues that Martin’s crime, considering the lack of premeditation, his drug addiction, his IQ level, and several other compelling factors does not qualify for the death penalty, and that the court ignored mitigating circumstances. Only four of thirty-three available defense witnesses were used in the sentencing phase...
(Excerpt) Read more at theyeshivaworld.com ...
Somehow, I don’t see low IQ and drug addiction as mitigating factors. Prior offenses don’t argue for mitigation either.
However, if the victim had been a “civilian” it probably wouldn’t be a capital case. I guess his sentence should commuted.
But I won’t cry if it isn’t. May God have mercy on him.
I wonder what this psychiatrist would say his intent was if not to kill?
An eye for an eye.
If the IQ is low enough in NY [really low], it can mitgate. But at least one defendant, IQ 68, who waived after MIRANDAS and confessed was held to have been sufficiently intelligent to understand the immediate import of the warnings when he waived them, so his confession stood, and so did the conviction.
By the way, it seems the author is combining the concepts of low IQ and criminal insanity, which usually deals with the failure or inability to know right from wrong.
Sounds like someone knew what they were doing
There are countries that have a lower IQ average than 77.
IIRC, during the trial of Jessica Lunsford’s murderer, the defense kept ranting about his alleged low IQ. From hearing the scumbag talk, in long sentences and with a substantial vocabulary, I found it near impossible to believe that he had an IQ in the 60s.
With a little reading, I found the claim was based on testing done by corrections people in FL ... a test of dubious validity.
I wonder if it is the same story here.
True, but they are not populated by Jews.
If he was capable of comprehending that shooting the gun was a violation of his probation, then he was certainly capable of understanding that killing a cop was murder. This “diminished capacity” defense is a sham; every lowlife who gets caught tries to argue that he’s stupid. Well, yeah, I would agree. But the only difference between him and a criminal is that he’s a STUPID criminal.
I have to agree with commuting to a life sentence here. The reason there is a difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter etc. are degrees of intent.
I support the death penalty but think it should be reserved for cases where there is good evidence of substantial premeditation and planning (ie. cold blooded murder). This is, I believe, what 1st degree murder was intended to be before it became a political tool of politicans and prosecutors.
And here I was thinking that the IQ average is by definition 100...unless you're looking at it on a global scale - which is not supported by your choice of words.
Better yet if the psychiatrist was the one looking down the gun barrel of the gun that the little “darling” was holding?
I’ve just been looking for the chart I was sent a few weeks ago. Can’t find it. I cleaned out my mailboxes a few days ago. It was a listing of all countries. So, it was a “global” comparison. I seem to recall that the lowest IQ average was 71. If I can find the chart, I’ll send it to you.
Doc
OK, I don’t really want to mince words, but “the average IQ” is ALWAYS 100 by definition! Read the article I linked to. I fully agree that a certain subset can score lower. My point is that any statement of “average IQ is lower than 100” cannot be true by definition of the term IQ. Because “average” = 100. QED.
You are correct. Average IQ is considered to be 100. That’s where the US stands. East Asians were at 105, and Jews at 115. Some African countries were rated at 70 and above. These numbers are from memory, because I searched and was unable to find the list I referred to. Sorry. I did find some really nasty comments on some of the sites. If you find a site with a world map, with regions mapped out in shades from yellow to brown, don’t read the comments. They’re disgraceful!
Hey, no problem! Just wanted to make sure we’re on the same page as regards “average IQ” = 100 - for whatever demographic set you’re looking at.
Cool! I was afraid we were going to get into a semantics argument, which is a waste of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.