I'm afraid my answer won't help much. I don't think anyone clincically low intelligence or not should be executed. Not even mass murders like ....

Well one politics discussion at a time.

Secondly to change your question to a more general one: should people with clinically low intelligence people be held less responsible for crimes than those of normal intelligence? And I'm afraid that the answer is again not helpful: depends on the particular circumstances - whether the retardation actually contributed to making the person less responsible. Degree of mental disability, whether someone took advantage of the low intelligence to confuse them to the point where they were less able to distinguish between right and wrong, and so on.

Do I think Atkins was of clinically low intelligence? Yes.

I killed it! Come back! Come back! We can talk about fluffy bunnies!

I think it's cruel and unusual punishment to execute anyone. Since the mentally retarded are a subset of anyone, yep, it's cruel and unusual. I don't know if Atkins is mentally retarded, but he still shouldn't die.

I'm very, very uncomfortable with the idea of a government invested with the power to kill its own citizens legally.

Jen, I gotta say I agree with you on that one.

I had no idea before today, though, that this kind of ruling was this recent (2002).

I'm very, very uncomfortable with the idea of a government invested with the power to kill its own citizens legally.

I am assuming you're also against a government invested with the power to legally kill people not holding its citizenship, right?

Oh, absolutely. Sorry, I should have said 'residents'.

Or, you know, 'anyone.' Because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a government that can kill anyone and call it legal.

The only times I am absolutely pro-death penalty, is in the case of anyone who does anything sexual with children. Molesting, rape, anything. You have any sort of sexual contact with a child (under the age of say 14), you get shot. Period.

you get shot

Not to side-track the discussion, but did you truly intend death by firing squad with that statement or would you be ok with lethal injection? I don't really have a point, I'm just curious if people make a distinction between methods of (quick) execution (i.e. up to but not including burning, draw-and-quartering, drowning, etc.).

Honestly, I really don't care. As long as they are removed from society.

Also, I'd like to do bad things to parents who kill their own children. Maybe not kill them, per se (with the exception of Susan Smith). But maybe sterilized.

Ever since having Em, I am completely unable to be objective on crimes against children because I see her face on every victim.

I am in the anti-death penalty camp. One of the reasons is this kind of case. All these fine lines that have to be drawn and earased and redrawn.

Just like diabetes , high blood pressure - we are constantly changing what mental retardation means. Or how old someone has to be to be held responsible for their actions.

If you went to a prision and just met a number of criminals, your most likey impression would be 'criminals are stupid' . ( ok, depending on whic h prision it might be 'criminals are scary') ( I have stolen DH's experience here) Most likely - the percentage of people in prison with Atkins level of intelligence is high. Honestly, this suggests to me that it is harder to find your place in this world if you are below average.

If I pretend that execution is an acceptable punishment, then the lines need to be drawn evenly. An equation,of sorts.( I tried to illustrate, but I couldn't) I am guessing under those circumstances , Atkins would be eligble for execution. and there would be more than there are.