posted on March 27, 2001 11:18:46 AM new
Copied from this mornings paper: The Supreme Court, in a surprise move, said Monday it will reconsider whether executing a person who is mentally retarded violates basic standards of decency. This is not a new argument. The high court rejected it on a 5-4 vote in 1989. There is no "national consensus against the execution of the mentally retarded", Sandra Day O Connor said then.
Ernest Paul McCarver has an IQ of 67, which most experts consider as retarded. He stabbed to death a 71 year old cafeteria worker in a robbery, and killed him so there would be no witnessses. Since he knew he would get "in trouble" for the robbery, he decided to kill him. This is knowledge of right and wrong. On March 1, the Supreme court intervened to block McCarvers execution and on monday morning the justices announced they had voted to hear the argument again executing retarded individuals. State attorneys question whether McCarver was truly retarded.
What about Hitler? He was intelligent but killed millions. Was he retarded? And who constitutes the numbers of IQ tests? According to what scale? And by whom? What exactly does "retarded" mean and when is someone not punishable with death due to that status of "retardation"?
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 27, 2001 11:19 AM ]
posted on March 27, 2001 03:26:30 PM new
The defendant's brother said in an interview that the defendant knew what he was doing, and even tried to cover it up.
posted on March 27, 2001 04:16:58 PM new
hi Bobbysoxer - I think you may be referring to a different case than Hepburn brought up.
The USSC has three cases, involving the mentally retarded, that they are reviewing.
One is the Johnny Penry case. This is the one I believe you are referring to. He (at age 23) raped and murdered Pamela Moseley-Carpenter (at age 22). She was the sister of the Washington Redskin place kicker, Mark Moseley. He committed this crime after just (3 months prior) having been released from prison for having raped another woman. I read that he admitted he had killed her so she wouldn't "tell" like the other woman had.
Two is the one I believe Hepburn referred to. That is Ernest McCarver, who stabbled Woodrow Hartley to death. Also robbed the store. He had two trials and was found guilt both times. When asked to fill-in-the-blanks on a piece of paper, this is how he answered.
A.) I like to _____. He wrote "kill".
B.) The happiest time was _______. He wrote "when I killed that man".
C.) At bedtime I dream ______. He wrote "about killing". Retarded or not, he [N]needs[/B] to be locked away from society, IMO.
Then there's an Antonio Richardson, from Missouri, who is a borderline retarded man.
posted on March 27, 2001 05:57:13 PM new
I don't think most of us have had enough contact with the people judged as retarded to understand how it effects them.
I worked for 5 years with a man who had a daughter regarded as retarded and saw many sides to her.
She would never be able to drive but she works for a supermarket and has worked in restaurants and manages her own checking account.
When she hears someone refer to her as retarded she objects and always informs them that she does not regard herself as retarded.
She enjoys simple word games but does not read even childrens books.
There are two qualities about her that surprised me.
She has a wicked sense of humor and understands and creates very sophisticated
jokes which I regarded as a higher function.
She also is very polite and non-agressive unless you lay hands on her. If you grab her and try to push her around she is as strong as a horse and will defend herself. A guard at the local Mall grabbed her by the elbow and jerked her to her feet thinking he could get away with it and she kicked him very skillfully in the side of the knee to take him down and proceeded to kick the snot out of him until
she was sure he was not a danger anymore and then walked back to her seat and sat back down to finish her Coke he had interupted.
The security head for the Mall was appaled that he laid hands on her.
Yet she is very nice if you keep your hands to yourself.
I imaigine there are retarded people of all sorts of personalities - some good some bad.
posted on March 27, 2001 08:49:01 PM new
Gravid,
Thanks for that post.
I volunteered on a project for a NPO, the population they worked with were the Developmentally Disabled.
I was struck how compassionate the folks who work with Developmentally Disabled people are. And how tough the greater society at large can be.
I won't comment on the thread, I know OT, but I will say that it saddens me to see this kind of media attention.
The media are quiet as mice unless the local press needs to garner some good will amongst their audience.
posted on March 27, 2001 09:07:51 PM new
Speaking of the word "retarded"...I was surprised to see it in print in the newspaper. Isnt that word one that is not considered "politically correct"? Like the "N" word. Same thing. I used it in the title thread, because it was a question. Of the word itself, the proper use of the word, and the overall meaning of it.
When I was in grammar school, MR was used alot, like "youre just an MR", or "you have cooties". Nowadays, the word "mentally challenged" or "mentally handicapped" is used, which sounds better. Retard? That was another thing I was asking. Just what IS a "retard"? What is considered "retard"? Not perfect? Lacking in some form? And who decides who is what?
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 27, 2001 09:09 PM ]
I think to call a person retarded is a coded way to put spin on a story.
Editors are not stupid folks. Had they called him Developmentally Disabled, that wouldn't be as inflaming as "retarded"
ps: Did you know that trucks used to say "inflammable" on the back meaning it can become, or change state to that of flame.
People didn't understand that and mistook if for "non" or the incorrect "un" flammable.
So now trucks read
flammable or non-flammable
Oh who am I to say...here is dictionary.com's note:
Usage Note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” In the circumstances, it is therefore advisable to use only flammable in contexts imparting warnings or on product labels, where a misinterpretation might have more serious consequences for the reader than an etymological mistake would deserve.
posted on March 27, 2001 09:23:11 PM new
Perhaps they exchanged INflammable for UNflammable? Who knows? And you are correct. Saying "retard" will get more response. Same as if someone said "a judge ruled that a black man..." versus "a judge claimed a "N"....". Now THAT would make them read, just to see what it was all about and cause an uproar for the term itself.
posted on March 27, 2001 09:36:31 PM new
Hello Hepburn - I feel a need to express my thoughts/feeling here. To me, IMO, our country is taking this 'politically correct' thing to the extreme. It's like a person cannot speak/write without giving heavy thought to each word that one uses.
For example, you brought up the "N" word. When I was a young girl, it was acceptable to use the word Negro. To say "N" was to use an offensive word. Then Nigro became P incorrect, and they preferred to be called colored. Then colored was no longer correct, they were to be referred to as blacks...just as you have done. Now the PC correct name is Africian-Americans. See what I mean? It's hard for many to keep up with what some find the proper word to use at any given time.
Today I listened to agruments from people who no longer wish to be called/referred to as 'minorities'. They find it offensive. Feel it makes people look at them as being 'less than' other.
All the recent online news that I have read, recently, about the Supreme Court having these three cases before them, referred to these people as mentally retarded. Most articles seem to be in agreement that most doctors will agree with an IQ # of less than 70 being mentally retarded. That doesn't mean anything as to what type of people they are. How loving they can be, how they can, in different ways contribute and enjoy and be enjoyed in their life.
posted on March 27, 2001 09:49:14 PM new
Hello lindak
What I was refering to was the OTHER "N" word. The bad one. The one I wont even type. Its degrading. And yes, words are words, but it depends on how they are used I think.
Not sure of the "proper" term, I asked a very close friend of mine what SHE considered the right word, and she said "I am a black woman. You are a white woman. We are friends. Black, white, friend". So thats what I have been going along with, since she said so
BTW...I have always liked your thoughts, lindak
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 27, 2001 09:50 PM ]
posted on March 27, 2001 10:05:44 PM new
Hepburn - Thank you. I feel the same about your posts. This thread really made me think today about where I do stand on the issue of a person who is 'mentally challanged' who commits murder. Were they able to understand that what they did was right or wrong, should they face the death penalty for their actions, etc.
I guess it's how a word is used, to me. Like if I say, "Joe is mentally retarded", that is (to me) not the same as saying, "Joe is a retard". Or if I call someone retarded because they are not agreeing with me (which I would never do) then I could see how that would be taken in a different 'light'.
who commits murder. Were they able to understand that what they did was right or wrong, should they face the death penalty for their actions, etc.