Should states where the death penalty is legal require a minimum mental capacity before sentencing someone to die?

Jon Gordon August 9, 2012, 5:00 AM Aug 9, 2012

A convicted murderer with an IQ measured at 61 was executed in Texas this week, prompting criticism from the ACLU and other groups. Today’s Question: Should states where the death penalty is legal require a minimum mental capacity before sentencing someone to die?

About the blogger

Jon Gordon

jgordon@mpr.org • @jongordon • 1-651-290-1024

Jon Gordon was the director of digital news for MPR News.

Kurt

Most people with an IQ of 61 wouldn’t hurt a fly. Neither would most with an IQ of 100 or 150. A few people murder other people. They should be dealt with according to the law regardless of their “intelligence”.

Steve the Cynic

No. States that have the death penalty should abolish it altogether.

Richard

I believe a true conservative should be against the death penalty out of suspicion of granting government such power.

At a minimum, I think most honest conservatives would agree that it be tightly restricted to extraordinary circumstances.

So for spying during war, assassination, mass murder and/or repeat murders (like by those already incarcerated).

For those that are Catholic – They should listen to the Pope on this topic.

Gary F

My opinion is that it costs the state more in court time, lawyers for the prosecution, possible state provided lawyers for the defendant, and the gazillion appeals before you can actually execute someone that it is probably cheaper to throw them in jail, have one appeal, and then move on.

Yes, a lifetime in prison is costly, it costs even more to execute someone.

Kurt Nelson

I’m not sure the state should use an arbitrary number like IQ, but I am pretty sure they should not use a fictional character to base their decision on. The Texas Appeals Court cited Steinbeck’s Lennie as a baseline for intelligence, rather than using science.

From the Steinbeck family:

”On behalf of the family of John Steinbeck, I am deeply troubled by today’s scheduled execution of Marvin Wilson, a Texas man with an I.Q. of 61. Prior to reading about Mr. Wilson’s case, I had no idea that the great state of Texas would use a fictional character that my father created to make a point about human loyalty and dedication, i.e, Lennie Small from Of Mice and Men, as a benchmark to identify whether defendants with intellectual disability should live or die. My father was a highly gifted writer who won the Nobel prize for his ability to create art about the depth of the human experience and condition. His work was certainly not meant to be scientific, and the character of Lennie was never intended to be used to diagnose a medical condition like intellectual disability. I find the whole premise to be insulting, outrageous, ridiculous, and profoundly tragic. I am certain that if my father, John Steinbeck, were here, he would be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this way.”

Texas should be ashamed, as should those who support the death penalty.

Sue de Nim

What Texas *should* do has very little to do with what Texas *will* do. There’s something about cowboy hats that seems to limit blood flow to the brain.

Jim G

The death penalty is itself insanity incarnate. Any state that would put the mentally disabled to death has a morally bankrupt law. Those who are pro-life and pro-death penalty are holding two incompatible and incoherent beliefs.

Jeanette

Abolish the Death Penalty. End the War on Drugs. Live, love, learn, and leave a legacy of loving-kindness and mindfulness.

Paul

Isn’t there already a criteria of “capacity to stand trial” and “the ability to tell right from wrong” before a person can be sentenced to anything?

Kent Scheidegger

Wilson’s IQ was measured five times: 73, 75, 61, 75, and 79. See the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion.

Why does MPR pick out the low-end outlier of the five tests and cite it as the measurement without mentioning the others? Isn’t it a disservice to your readers to give such a misleading half-truth?
Kurt Nelson

My post earlier towards jockomo was not intended as a pile on post, rather that I want good conservative thought/argument, something that challenges my own orthodoxy. I am a lefty lib, but I seek out conservative blogs, thinkers, writers to make that challenge. But, the name calling and whining are not the conservative thought I seek. Post substance, and be convicted in your argument, but don’t call me names.

Back to Texas.

IQ is not logarithmic, so even though this young man had a range of 61-79, it does not tell when those tests were performed. Was his score of 61 when he was 3, or 15, or 23. I think that makes a difference.Read about his capacity as an adult, he was essentially unable to perform even menial tasks, tasks that children do without a problem. Inability to understand your actions (because of retardation) should not be a death sentence.

In the end, the Court ruled correctly in Atkins v. Virginia, that the retarded cannot be be executed for their crimes.Too bad Texas is such an outlier.
GregX

the death penalty is about as wrongly built, horribly run and poorly reviewed a process as we have in our legal system. Intended to make criminals think twice about committing violent crimes – it fails miserably as a deterent.
Kurt

@Jim G

To the contrary, it would seem that those holding the “pro-choice”-anti-death penalty view would be the ones holding the incompatible views. A murderer has comitted a heinous crime; a fetus is innocent. To suggest moral equivalence is utterly barbaric.
Wally

Evil knows no limits of intelligence, whether of genius or imbecile. But the anti-DP camp will grasp at any straw in the attempt to totally ban the ultimate form of justice for the ultimate crimes.

To Gary F.

WHY does it cost more to execute a heartless killer? Because of costly appeals and delays caused by the ACLU and their ilk.

After 22 years and $1.5 million in appeals, Donald Moeller, the rapist-murderer of a little girl in South Dakota confessed to his crimes. And according to his lawyer, “accepts the execution as the consequence of his actions,” He is scheduled to die in a couple months.

And STILL, the rabid anti-DP clan plans to oppose the carrying out of the sentence, and cause more delays.

His victim, Becky O’Connell, would now be 31-years-old if he hadn’t killed her.
David Poretti

The purpose of the penal system is to punish, without being cruel or unusual, someone for having committed a crime; and to provide either rehabilitation of the criminal or protection to society from further crimes by the person in question.

I fail to see how the death penalty provides for rehabilitation or further protects society, compared to the alternative of life in prison.

@ Wally -The mission of the ACLU is to defend and preserve individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Primarily:

*Your First Amendment rights – freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

*Your right to equal protection under the law – protection against unlawful discrimination.

*Your right to due process – fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

*Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
Terry in Freeborn

I would favor a minimum IQ without being familiar with this particular case in Texas.

In a meticulously premeditated capital crime such as the Aurora theater massacre and comparable domestic terrorism –now sure to follow— with overwhelming evidence to convict I am now in favor of swift justice within two weeks –with an unpleasant execution… for the sole purpose of deterrence–which we must all admit we are silently desperate for–given the fascination with: gun power, extremely violent action movies, and of course long murder trials, in this culture. We actually need a cultural (entertainment) revolution in the US but we’ll need to find at least two influential people who are in favor of that approach.