Retardation is something you're born with. You're born with downs syndrome or not. People can develop mental illnesses as a result of stress, or life. Multiple personality disorder, for example, is not something I believe you're born with -- you gotta go through a lot of shit to develop it.
posted
mental retardation IS NOT an illness. an illness is something that changes someones normal state biologically in a detrimental way. if someone was born mentally retarded then being mentally retarded is their normal state. mental retardation is no different than above normal intelligence, they are just opposite sides of the coin. i doubt many people would call genius an illness.
IP: Logged
posted
The way the terms are being used here, mental illness == instability, mental retardation == sub-par intelligence. That's he simplest explanation I can think of.
And, personally, I agree w/ this new ruling. But then, that's just because I don't think they should execute anybody, so I guess I can't contribute much.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
To define "illness" in such a way that congenital diseases do not qualify strikes me as the ultimate in hairspliting..
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
a congenital disease, such as down syndrome, is clearly an illness. simple mental retardation is not a congenital disease. it's simply having a sub normal intelligence. do the gifted have a disease? afterall, their intelligence is not in the normal range. of course the gifted do not have a disease. the retarded do not have a disease if their below average intelligence is simply caused by the fact that weren't born "smart". if they are retarded because they have down syndrome then they have a congenital illness. if they are retarded because their intelligence falls on the low end of what is possible with a normally developed brain then they do not have an illness.
i don't think that the court really took into consideration the definition of the word "retarded", and i don't think that many people on this forum are either. to reiterate, if you are retarded simply because you are less smart than average but your brain and other physical attributes are healthy and normal for a human being, then you DO NOT have a disease.
IP: Logged
posted
Uh...I don't have the court documents in front of me, but I strongly doubt they're using, say, the Boston definition of "retarded." The word carries a rather stronger definition than just not-as-smart as smart people.
"Hey, Scalia, after the case let's head down to Louie's and get wicked retahded!"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
hey, retarded simply means "lower than average" intelligence. if the court can't figure that out, then maybe they themselves fit the definition. just so you know, there are already very mildly retarded people getting ready to challenge their death penalty convictions in my state (Ohio). they are going to argue that since they are slightly retarded (ie, their IQ is less than 70), they cannot be executed due to the supreme court ruling barring the retarded from being executed. they don't have down syndrome. they weren't born with a femur in their head. they are simply of below average intelligence. looks like i know what i'm talking about, hombre. retardation=retardation, and this was a court ruling about retardation.
posted
And I never disputed the underlying concern. But I still think your distinction is arbitrary, and that the legal definitions are likely quite precise, perhaps even overly so. Airplanes are not vehicles, for instance, in the legal definition of the term.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And of course, mental retardation can come from injury to the brain at any point in one's life. See: Regarding Henry with Han Solo as retard.
Now. I'm not sure that I agree with this ruling from the shit court. It will seem cruel to say so, but if an animal mauls a child, we put it down. If a man with a substandard intellect does so, we give him three hots and a cot, and cable tv? Why?
This ruling is saying that if I get killed by a retarded man because he wanted my Sega Genesis, it's not as bad as if he were a gang-banger and killed me because he wanted my car.
The arguement that says "Well, he didn't KNOW that what he did was bad" doesn't hold water with me. If he can't recognize that killing is bad, then he won't recognize that he's about to be put to death. Ignorance is bliss, and the punishment is not cruel and unusual.
If the killing is accidental, then none of that matters. But I don't remember the last time a man was sentenced to death for manslaughter.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
