Suddenly, prisons full of 'retarded'

Philly.com ^

[Age of Reason]

If retarded people are too incompetent to understand and follow the law . . .

Then they are too incompetent to be at large among normal law-abiding people.

And so all retarded people should all be permanently institutionialized for their own protection and the protection of those around them.

Can't have it both ways.

[dennisw]

Bottom line:

Man kills your wife for no good reason. He is retarded. Do you want him to get the death penalty? I sure would and you know what, I would sleep better at night when he is executed, knowing that justice had been done. Anyone kills my wife I want him to be tried and executed. No free passes, no affirmative action, no bllsht!

[dennisw]

For minor crimes I am willing to consider mental states and low IQ. Not when murder is the crime. Not when a "retarded" or "crazy" person inflicts enough damage to cripple someone for life.

[dennisw]

Retarded man kills your father. Do you want him to be tried and executed?

[Age of Reason]

I'll try again:

If retarded people are too incompetent to follow the law . . .

Then retarded people are too dangerous to be among us.

[dennisw]

So you don't want the man who killed your father to be tried and executed. No matter if he is mentally normal, retarded or derranged?

This idea is very sick to me but so be it.

[Age of Reason]

retarded people are often under care or institutionalization.

Often is not good enough.

You have said there are people so retarded that they are incapable of being responsible for their actions.

People incapable of being responsible for their actions should not only remain locked up--but should be locked up before they hurt someone.

To be a free citizen requires that one be competent to understand the law.

To say that someone is not able to follow the law, is to say that person is ungovernable--is like a wild man.

Should we have wild men loose on the streets . . . .

Wild men who might in a moment out of some retarded fantasy, turn on any one of us or on one of our children?

[dennisw]

if someone with the capability to know that killing is wrong killed someone that calls for punishment. i've never argued otherwise...............


IOW if the murderer is retarded he gets thrown in prison. If the murderer has normal IQ he gets executed. Do realize how inconsistent and stupid this is? I guess not.

[Age of Reason]

Unless, of course, there is something else to being culpable other than one's score on an IQ test.

Is it lack of intelligence or an evil nature at work?

It would seem to me that evil is something apart from intelligence, as even smart people break the law.

I know dogs--dogs whose IQ's must be the equal of a four-year old boy--yet who would never kidnap, rape, torture, mutilate, and kill someone.

And I--if not you--I am sure there are retarded people who would never do such a thing, too.

It is not a matter of intelligence--it is the matter of heartless viciousness that is the object of punishment.

IQ has NOTHING to do with it.

But if IQ has to do with it, then lock up all stupid people as being wild animals, incapable of following the law and too dangerous to be among us.

[Myrddin]

so the theory of incarceration would be protection -- of that individual and of society. not punishment. often, this argues for less restrictive and painful incarceration than we give to the evil. like asking for halfway houses or hospitals rather than the death penalty, or even care of a family member rahter than jail. like your bear example, we would not release them in playgrounds of school children. rather we would probably feed them and send them into the woods.

Incarceration of the individual is PUNISHMENT for the individual and PROTECTION of society from future criminal acts by an individual who doesn't have the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. The death penalty accomplishes both aims and reduces the burden on society to pay for lifelong incarceration.

A half-way house is just a publically funded boarding house for a criminal waiting to commit the next crime. When said criminal does commit the next crime, the persons in the legal system that enabled the crime should be jointly liable for the criminal act.

[oldironsides]

The school systems throughout America have tested children for decades. The results of the tests would be available to the prosecutors or defense. Which one will take a look?