Suddenly, prisons full of 'retarded'

Philly.com ^

[dennisw]

I agree.

[Publius6961]

Suddenly, prisons full of 'retarded'

Why not?
The voting booths are.

Egalitarianism, you know.

[Publius6961]

Some advocates for the retarded fear that pinning "retarded" labels on society's most violent criminals could create a stigma for retarded people in the general population, the vast majority of whom are nonviolent.

I was wondering how long it would take to see the obvious.

This whole concept is an insult to the truly retarded, 99.9% of whom are not only law-abiding, but among the nicest, or at worst the most harmless persons around.

[Sub-Driver]

escape clause....lawyer bag of tricks......shame....

[Age of Reason]

Amazing, isn't it, how as you (dennisw) mentioned, liberals first say IQ tests are biased and therefore meaningless?

But next thing you and I hear, liberals say people with low IQ's should not be punished for crimes.

Then the liberals are saying people with low IQ's do not deserve to be institutionalized--they should be in jobs programs so they can support themselves in the outside world.

Now liberals turn around and say people with low IQ's are too stupid to obey the law, so it's not their fault when they rape, rob, and murder us.

So they should be let out of jail!

Why bother arresting them in the first place???

Weird.

[Axenolith]

Your comment that the lawyers were performing ethically motivated activities.

[Age of Reason]

You remember that fellow who was executed, but he was supposed to be so retarded that he left part of his last meal so he could finish eating after he came back from his execution?

That's really sad.

He didn't even know he was being punished.

So if anything, such people should be executed harder--to get it through their thick skulls that what they did is wrong!

[dennisw]

The idiot and deranged murderers need to be taken out sooner, ASAP, so they don't contibute to the gene pool via jailhouse conjugal visits.

[RightWhale]

We are all everything advantageous. We should also know that by being something, we have denied our persons. All ethics used to require personhood, so the old ethics no longer applies. Now we have the new ethics, which applies to animals, the environment, to any group that declares itself a group. Every sugar pine, every penguin, and every anencephalic now has dignity. Even air, water, spirits that live in smooth river rocks, and solar X-class flares. So, is there a problem with anything possessing DNA and everything not possessing DNA, that is, DNA-challenged, having rights? This is great. Even Satan himself could apply for relief and get it.

[Chantal]

The question is..was he retarded when he committed the crime?. He was smart enough to escape to a country where there is no death penalty. He sounds like a man who had all his marbles then. That's the problem with our laws, they wait so long to execute anybody that a criminal has time to develop alzeimer or dementia and be declared incompetent.

[Myrddin]

the whole problem is that it doesn't make sense to punish someone if they can't tell the difference between right and wrong

Frankly, I don't care if they understand the punishment. Even the dumbest creature will develop a conditioned response when an action comes with a negative consequence. If the action is criminal violence, you must separate the individual from society to prevent a repetition. Especially if the individual is too stupid or too inclined to evil behavior to comprehend why the behavior is totally unacceptable. Some may even find it a form of entertainment.

[zoesmom]

I disagree. The inability to differentiate between right and wrong is the legal definition of insanity, not an indicator of intelligence. If somebody has philosophized to that extent, with that result, then they are insane, not merely intelligent.

Also, criminal attorneys (completely different from contingency fee attorneys), do have to explore every possible defense available to their client, not only the ones they like, or are popular, and not only the plausible ones. If they don't, they can get sued for malpractice and face disciplinary action.

[Myrddin]

I meant that some criminals find criminal activity to be a form of entertainment. They enjoy performing violent acts on other people. Such individuals need to be physically removed from society on a permanent basis. Incarcerate or execute as appropriate to the criminal act.

[Age of Reason]

The inability to differentiate between right and wrong is the legal definition of insanity, not an indicator of intelligence. If somebody has philosophized to that extent, with that result, then they are insane, not merely intelligent.

But what if there really IS no difference between right and wrong, and only the very intelligent people are able to see that?