NEWS: UnRetarded

CULTURE: UnRetarded

The U.S. Supreme Court found in the case of Daryl R. Atkins that it is unconstitutional to execute someone with an IQ lower than 70. In 1998, Atkins scored a 59.

As a result of the rigors of studying and the time invested reading of law books has now put Atikin's life in jeopardy because his IQ has increased.

I wonder if Ms. Addison can see the sweet irony in calling someone retarded.

From an educational standpoint, IQ alone cannot and does not serve as diagnostic evidence of mental retardation. An IQ lower than 80 and the inability to perform two or more adaptive skills is generally considered evidence of retardation. It seems strange to me that the court system wouldn't use the same guidelines as the DSM.

On a totally unrelated note, I really wish you guys could find articles that weren't subscription-only.

I just read that as "on a totally unretarded note".

Is it bad that I laughed at that?

No, because I did too.

I thought that people who studied such things generally agreed that IQ scores after late adolescence were nearly meaningless, especially since a positive attitude towards 'being smart' can be conditioned through education.

The DSM is a moving target that doesn't follow precedent in the same way as the legal system. It wouldn't really work.

I just served on a jury to decided whether a pedophile was still sexually dangerous, and the court definately stressed the DSM.

Plue, I could take an IQ test now and score say, a 130. Then I could take another IQ test and score lower or higher. IQ tests really don't prove much.

If you are really intrested in reading it. http://www.bugmenot.com/

Why would we want to execute such a valued and productive member of our society? He has so much to offer.

True. But, mental retardation is defined fairly statically in the ADA and the DSM from what I understand. I wouldn't think that the court would need it's own definition, especially since the experts have weighed in on the current definitions. But, regardless, IQ scores can't prove much and the word 'retardation' in itself implies developmental delay not the impossibility of intellectual development. I would think in the same way that a sexual partner's age at the time of the alleged crime denotes pedophilia, the intellectual capacity of a murderer at the time of their crime should denote responsibility for their actions.

If being in jail allowed him more of an education than he ever previously had, I don't see how it's fair to say that he is or isn't valued or productive. Are you saying ignorance should be punishable by death?

What's the difference between an IQ of 69 and one of 74? I mean, I'd guess that there's probably a statistically significant difference between somebody who scores a 69 and an 89, but I can't imagine a five point difference means all that much.

What's the difference between an IQ of 69 and one of 74? I mean, I'd guess that there's probably a statistically significant difference between somebody who scores a 69 and an 89, but I can't imagine a five point difference means all that much.

I'm saying I have no respect for and place no value on the life of a predator.
He knew how to:
1. Obtain and use a firearm.
2. Abduct and murder another human being.
3. Use an ATM to obtain currency.

... he knows the difference between right and wrong.

He didn't act alone and the man he was with was neurotypical. But, other than that, I would say that the point you make is valid and whether or not he could understand those things should be more important than what his IQ is or was.

my iq is over 150 and girls call me retarted all the time

I'm totally safe........whew

That's because you can't spell.

Login: sgnews
Password: sgnews

Learn it, know it, live it.

true

Very true. That's what I should have just said right away but my sarcasm gets the best of me sometimes.

hmmm...i see the prosecuters want to use his more recent tests. Is it still ethical if he had lower scores at the time? I say the prosecuters are retarded.

I'm all for the death penalty. But in this case, I don't agree with it. The guy was "retarded" when he committed the crime. He shouldn't be executed.

If a child kills someone, and is tried as a child, they don't execute him when he's older. He was a child when he committed the crime.

They shouldn't penalize him for being smarter NOW than he was when he committed the crime.