I have two papers two write for my Medterm in Philosophy thats due next week, Friday. For one question i would like people to answer, because i'm highly curious for how people will answer
( Read more... )
I don't see your reply to my comment on here, why is that?
Anyway, you brought up some great points, so let me expand upon my previous post.
[quote=danielle] I read an article that stated that a man who was mentally retarded was with his "friends" who convinced him to take a guy into a store and take the persons money. He didn't understand why or that it was even wrong because a "friend" told him it was good to do. When he walked in a few minutes later, he couldn't remember what his friend told him to do and just shot the man and left, without robbing the bank. Do you think he should be sentenced to death for the death of that man?[/quote]
In this case, no. All circumstances must be taken into account, and this is why we have trials. Clearly, in this case, the "friends" should be charged with atleast second degree murder. However, the mentally retarded man should be under the supervision of a competent adult, just as a five year old should.
Note that in my previous post I said:
I believe that when a person intentionally violates an innocent person's right to life, he forfeits his own, plain and simple.
The key word here is "intentionally", or in other words, murder.
The man in this case probably had no concept of the finality of death, nor was he likely aware of the destructive power of a firearm. It's also worth noting that he was handed a gun and told what to do; he likely would have done no such thing on his own.
Though each case should be judged individually, I do not believe that having a low IQ should automatically disqualify a person from the death penalty.
I changed my comment where no one could see it. I did that so if someone else actually replys, i want to see what their reasons on and not get them from whati said above. Make sense?
Note that in my previous post I said:
I believe that when a person intentionally violates an innocent person's right to life, he forfeits his own, plain and simple.
The key word here is "intentionally", or in other words, murder.
~Ya, i know you said that and i agree. I was just bringing up points to you from my last comment to make you think. Because, in my experience, when i brought up the question, "Would you put a 5-year-old or a 7-year-old on death row?" ALl said, no because of the fact that kids just dont understand. So, i explained that a mental retarded person below the I.Q. of 70 [and actually in the eighties-like 85] have the same mental age as those childrens ages. it made them think because they never thought about it that way because some people think of their menal state as an adult I.Q. or near it, and not knowing the difference between right and wrong. Well, M.R. do know that something is right or wrong but if you ask them to explain why, they don't know. One article i read had a good example of that:
In limiting a person's cognitive development and ability to learn, mental retardation also limits the ability to understand abstract concepts, including moral concepts. While most defendants with mental retardation who have committed a crime know they have done something wrong, they often cannot explain why the act was wrong.
· At the trial of a man with mental retardation convicted of raping and murdering an 87-year old woman, a clinical psychologist testified that while the defendant could acknowledge that rape was "wrong," he was nonetheless not able to offer any explanation for why. "Pressed for an answer, [the defendant] admitted not receiving `permission' for the rape....Pressed further, in desperation, he blurted out, `Maybe it's against her religion!'
And here are other things:
The inability to comprehend abstract concepts may include the inability to fully understand the meaning of "death" or "murder".
· Morris Mason, whose I.Q. was 62-66, was executed in 1985 in Virginia after being convicted of rape and murder. Before his execution, Mason asked one of his legal advisors for advice on what to wear to his funeral.
Since they often face abuse, taunts, and rejection because of their low intelligence, people with mental retardation can be desperate for approval and friendship. Eager to be accepted and eager to please, people with mental retardation are characteristically highly suggestible.
· Earl Washington, whose mental retardation was diagnosed when he was a child, confessed during long police interrogations to a murder that he did not commit. Washington was so suggestible and eager to please, according to a former employer, that "you could get [him] to confess that he walked on the moon." In an effort to show the invalidity of Washington's confession because of his mental deficiencies, his trial lawyer would "pick a day, any day, and tell Washington that day was [his] birth date....after prodding and cajoling, Washington would accept the false date."
And before i forget, when M.r. have been put on trail [least the articles i read so far] they dont get a fair trail because lots of courts dismiss/dont tlak about important information of the M.R. persons background-it being with proof of their m.r. and their trouble of comprehension/etc.
The M.R. people that had the death penalty were just like the M.R. person with his friends who tried to convince him of robbing a store, or killed someone without even knowing what "death" and "murder" means and is. Why should they be put on the death penalty?
Here's a question, and i have my own answers for this question but i'm curious of your answer.
What would bring a person to the death penalty? A normal person with 100+ I.Q. and a mentally retarded person?
You said before, that if it was intentionally, they should be put on trail or however you word it. I agree, but what clarify's as "intentionally" to a m.r. person who thinks like a child?
A 5-year-old child can say to his friend, "i hate you. you're mean to me." while holding a real gun that he thought was a toy, while shooting his friend. Or putting a pillow over his head that eventually killed his friend. as i pointed out many times, a child his age can not comprehend death and the cause and effect when it comes to situations like that. Should he be on death row because he intentionally put a pillow on his friends head, not knowing that it would permentally kill him? Of course, he should be punished for his crime, but putting someone on the death penalty for killing someone when they dont have the level of knowledge and abstract thinking of knowing what they did, i believe is wrong.
You didn't answer my other question before: Would you put a child on death row? Why or why not?
I have no idea if all of this makese sense because i babbled again and i'm pressed for time. so, excuse me if it's weird and doesnt make sense.
Anyway, you brought up some great points, so let me expand upon my previous post.
[quote=danielle] I read an article that stated that a man who was mentally retarded was with his "friends" who convinced him to take a guy into a store and take the persons money. He didn't understand why or that it was even wrong because a "friend" told him it was good to do. When he walked in a few minutes later, he couldn't remember what his friend told him to do and just shot the man and left, without robbing the bank. Do you think he should be sentenced to death for the death of that man?[/quote]
In this case, no. All circumstances must be taken into account, and this is why we have trials. Clearly, in this case, the "friends" should be charged with atleast second degree murder. However, the mentally retarded man should be under the supervision of a competent adult, just as a five year old should.
Note that in my previous post I said:
I believe that when a person intentionally violates an innocent person's right to life, he forfeits his own, plain and simple.
The key word here is "intentionally", or in other words, murder.
The man in this case probably had no concept of the finality of death, nor was he likely aware of the destructive power of a firearm. It's also worth noting that he was handed a gun and told what to do; he likely would have done no such thing on his own.
Though each case should be judged individually, I do not believe that having a low IQ should automatically disqualify a person from the death penalty.
Reply
Note that in my previous post I said:
I believe that when a person intentionally violates an innocent person's right to life, he forfeits his own, plain and simple.
The key word here is "intentionally", or in other words, murder.
~Ya, i know you said that and i agree. I was just bringing up points to you from my last comment to make you think. Because, in my experience, when i brought up the question, "Would you put a 5-year-old or a 7-year-old on death row?" ALl said, no because of the fact that kids just dont understand. So, i explained that a mental retarded person below the I.Q. of 70 [and actually in the eighties-like 85] have the same mental age as those childrens ages. it made them think because they never thought about it that way because some people think of their menal state as an adult I.Q. or near it, and not knowing the difference between right and wrong. Well, M.R. do know that something is right or wrong but if you ask them to explain why, they don't know. One article i read had a good example of that:
In limiting a person's cognitive development and ability to learn, mental retardation also limits the ability to understand abstract concepts, including moral concepts. While most defendants with mental retardation who have committed a crime know they have done something wrong, they often cannot explain why the act was wrong.
· At the trial of a man with mental retardation convicted of raping and murdering an 87-year old woman, a clinical psychologist testified that while the defendant could acknowledge that rape was "wrong," he was nonetheless not able to offer any explanation for why. "Pressed for an answer, [the defendant] admitted not receiving `permission' for the rape....Pressed further, in desperation, he blurted out, `Maybe it's against her religion!'
And here are other things:
The inability to comprehend abstract concepts may include the inability to fully understand the meaning of "death" or "murder".
· Morris Mason, whose I.Q. was 62-66, was executed in 1985 in Virginia after being convicted of rape and murder. Before his execution, Mason asked one of his legal advisors for advice on what to wear to his funeral.
Since they often face abuse, taunts, and rejection because of their low intelligence, people with mental retardation can be desperate for approval and friendship. Eager to be accepted and eager to please, people with mental retardation are characteristically highly suggestible.
· Earl Washington, whose mental retardation was diagnosed when he was a child, confessed during long police interrogations to a murder that he did not commit. Washington was so suggestible and eager to please, according to a former employer, that "you could get [him] to confess that he walked on the moon." In an effort to show the invalidity of Washington's confession because of his mental deficiencies, his trial lawyer would "pick a day, any day, and tell Washington that day was [his] birth date....after prodding and cajoling, Washington would accept the false date."
I'm just stating other information.
Reply
The M.R. people that had the death penalty were just like the M.R. person with his friends who tried to convince him of robbing a store, or killed someone without even knowing what "death" and "murder" means and is. Why should they be put on the death penalty?
Here's a question, and i have my own answers for this question but i'm curious of your answer.
What would bring a person to the death penalty? A normal person with 100+ I.Q. and a mentally retarded person?
You said before, that if it was intentionally, they should be put on trail or however you word it. I agree, but what clarify's as "intentionally" to a m.r. person who thinks like a child?
A 5-year-old child can say to his friend, "i hate you. you're mean to me." while holding a real gun that he thought was a toy, while shooting his friend. Or putting a pillow over his head that eventually killed his friend.
as i pointed out many times, a child his age can not comprehend death and the cause and effect when it comes to situations like that. Should he be on death row because he intentionally put a pillow on his friends head, not knowing that it would permentally kill him? Of course, he should be punished for his crime, but putting someone on the death penalty for killing someone when they dont have the level of knowledge and abstract thinking of knowing what they did, i believe is wrong.
You didn't answer my other question before: Would you put a child on death row? Why or why not?
I have no idea if all of this makese sense because i babbled again and i'm pressed for time. so, excuse me if it's weird and doesnt make sense.
Reply
Leave a comment