I was reading something earlier this week when an article caught my eye.
A court in Virginia was in the process of selecting a jury to listen to a case
that the presiding judge calls "unique in the annals of judicial
history". Daryl Atkins, 27, was found guilty of killing another younger
man (Eric Nesbitt aged 21) in 1996 and he was sentenced to death, but the
Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to put to death somebody with
learning difficulties (he scored 59 points in an IQ test he took in 1998).
However, in the process of lodging appeals against his conviction, he's managed
to get so much mental stimulation that he managed to score 74 and 76 points in
two recent IQ tests. Apparently, the cut-off point defining mental retardation
is normally put at below 70 points... The jury that's being selected at the
moment will have to decide on whether he is now "sufficiently compos
mentis" to face being put to death.
So what does everybody else think, should or shouldn't he be put to death?
Ummm.... I'm against the death penalty anyways. ...But in any case, I think
his state at the time of the crime is the pertinent factor. ...I don't think he
can be put to death, now that he may be able to grasp concepts quicker after the
fact.
If the death penalty is truely to be used as a deterent (it's arguable if it
works but we at least commonly claim it is used as a deterent) than his state at
the time of his crime should determine his punishment, not his state almost a
decade later.
yeah i know about this (im in virgina btw) its really stupid. Quote' We cant
kill him hes too dumb to know were killing him'. then why are you making this a
big deal out of this. if he doesnt know the difference then what does it matter.
heres my opinon:
We should only use the death penalty if there is concrete evidence, such as DNA,
to link the acussed to the crime.
now his physical/mental state at the time of the murder does come into play but
should only be as circumstantial evedence. a lot of us become extermly stressed
out at times and our judgement is blurred, but we dont go kill people. be sides
he could have faked that IQ test just so theyd think hes retarded. it is not
concrete. there is DNA evidence that links him to the murder and he needs to pay
for his crime.
I disagree with the death penalty completely. However you look at it, it isn't a
deterrent, it's murder. No matter what someone has done, nobody deserves to be
killed. I'm not sure if it's scientifically possible to gain 17 IQ points, but
there is a difference between true learning difficulties and merely having a low
IQ.
death penalty = no no in my book -- just sentence them to life in prison --
death penalty is a crime in a way -- you're killing/murdering someone just like
they killed/murdered someone. it should simply be life in prison and no way out
of life in prison.
I think that he should be punished for the crime he has committed -- that way he
will learn that what he did was bad. it's just like when we punish children --
they didn't know it was bad or that they did something wrong -- but we punish
them so they understand that wat they did was bad. uh -- hope that makes sense
lol -- tired o_O but that's my take on it.
I was reading something earlier this week when an article caught my eye.
A court in Virginia was in the process of selecting a jury to listen to a case that the presiding judge calls "unique in the annals of judicial history". Daryl Atkins, 27, was found guilty of killing another younger man (Eric Nesbitt aged 21) in 1996 and he was sentenced to death, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to put to death somebody with learning difficulties (he scored 59 points in an IQ test he took in 1998). However, in the process of lodging appeals against his conviction, he's managed to get so much mental stimulation that he managed to score 74 and 76 points in two recent IQ tests. Apparently, the cut-off point defining mental retardation is normally put at below 70 points... The jury that's being selected at the moment will have to decide on whether he is now "sufficiently compos mentis" to face being put to death.
So what does everybody else think, should or shouldn't he be put to death?
Ummm.... I'm against the death penalty anyways. ...But in any case, I think his state at the time of the crime is the pertinent factor. ...I don't think he can be put to death, now that he may be able to grasp concepts quicker after the fact.
If the death penalty is truely to be used as a deterent (it's arguable if it works but we at least commonly claim it is used as a deterent) than his state at the time of his crime should determine his punishment, not his state almost a decade later.
yeah i know about this (im in virgina btw) its really stupid. Quote' We cant kill him hes too dumb to know were killing him'. then why are you making this a big deal out of this. if he doesnt know the difference then what does it matter. heres my opinon:
We should only use the death penalty if there is concrete evidence, such as DNA, to link the acussed to the crime.
now his physical/mental state at the time of the murder does come into play but should only be as circumstantial evedence. a lot of us become extermly stressed out at times and our judgement is blurred, but we dont go kill people. be sides he could have faked that IQ test just so theyd think hes retarded. it is not concrete. there is DNA evidence that links him to the murder and he needs to pay for his crime.
I disagree with the death penalty completely. However you look at it, it isn't a deterrent, it's murder. No matter what someone has done, nobody deserves to be killed. I'm not sure if it's scientifically possible to gain 17 IQ points, but there is a difference between true learning difficulties and merely having a low IQ.
Well... I'm against the death penalty either way, but to respond on this:
If he's not smart enough to understand what he did, than he can't be hold accountable for it (I hope I don't need to explain this).
If he doesn't understand what he did, he could do it again, and should therefor be taken from society... (just my opinion)
death penalty = no no in my book -- just sentence them to life in prison -- death penalty is a crime in a way -- you're killing/murdering someone just like they killed/murdered someone. it should simply be life in prison and no way out of life in prison.
I think that he should be punished for the crime he has committed -- that way he will learn that what he did was bad. it's just like when we punish children -- they didn't know it was bad or that they did something wrong -- but we punish them so they understand that wat they did was bad. uh -- hope that makes sense lol -- tired o_O but that's my take on it.