Holy shit. Putin and I agree on something. Have pigs flown yet?

Pigs have been flying in Porkopolis (Cincinnati) for a long time.

http://www.munichcincinnati.org/pigs.html

"But Putin, that's wrong -- Texas's criteria was not based on IQ, and did not say, "60 is a high enough IQ to execute somebody.""

In 2002 the SC ruled that people with an IQ below 70 are ineligible for the death penalty. He was diagnosed by state officials as having an IQ of 61. This is a violation of the 'law of the land', as Invictus likes to say over & over, but I guess that doesn't count when it suits him.

""never-execute-any-'retarded'-person" are both over simplifications of the issues here."

Oversimplification? What was Atkins v. Virginia?

"Guess what, there's a pretty good motivation to screw up the IQ test in those circumstances."

Gee, I guess we can throw out the law as it pertains to mental disability and just let the executioners kill whoever they please, so long as they pass some subjective barometer of having an "organized life".

BTW, as for this being an iron-clad "Wilson did it" case, it's not even close. There's no forensic evidence and no eye witness testimony. How people with a conscience are calling for someone to be executed on that basis, in addition to this being a violation of the court's prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment, is beyond me. The victim in this case died the morning after the supposed 'gunshot' was heard. The only thing the state of Texas had on Wilson was the testimony of the *wife of his "accomplice" that Wilson "admitted" to doing it. That's it. That is all. And if you think people have an incentive to lie about IQ tests, how about incentive of suspects wives lying about confessions.

Wrong, Putin.

You say,

"In 2002 the SC ruled that people with an IQ below 70 are ineligible for the death penalty."

This is false. The SC said that mentally retarded persons cannot be executed, but explicitly left it up to the states to determine the standard for who is mentally retarded.

Here is the quote:

"Not all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus. As was our approach in Ford v. Wainwright, with regard to insanity, “we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences.”"

Indeed, the Texas law against executing the mentally retarded was one of the laws cited as support for the position the Supreme Court took in that case. The only time the number "70" in connection with IQ appears in the whole decision is in a passing statistical remark.

Moreover, the Supreme Court had ample opportunity to step in in this case -- it would have taken only four justices to decide to hear the case. If the law announced in 2002 was what you said it was, don't you think they would have done that?

Moreover, a key part of the Supreme Court's 2002 rationale was that the mentally retarded often act impulsively. There was nothing impulsive about this case, which seems relevant.

"The only thing the state of Texas had on Wilson was the testimony of the *wife of his "accomplice" that Wilson "admitted" to doing it. That's it. That is all."

That is a lie, and I would invite anybody interested in seeing so to read the first link I post above.

Texas, like the knuckle dragging barbarians that they are, is alone in measuring mental competency via the Briseno factors, inspired by a fucking novel. Nothing scientific about it whatsoever. But I guess that's good enough for you. Impulsive? How do you measure impulsive. He ran into the guy at a gas station, and he and his friend put him in a car (what happened afterwards is unclear, as I said, there were no witnesses to any murder nor any forensic evidence, if you're calling me a liar, then tell me who the witnesses were). That sounds pretty impulsive to me. But why on earth does such a phony baloney measure of mental capacity figure into a decision about life & death?

Putin,

The US Supreme Court's case in Atkins INSTRUCTED states to come up with standards BASED ON POPULAR CONCEPTIONS AND STANDARDS -- it did not say they had to or even should be based on science, but on popular notions of what was just. Furthermore, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not "base" its standards on a Steinbeck novel. It briefly discussed the novel for purposes of example during the opinion. This is a legitimate practice. Moreover, the "impulsive" language was from SCOTUS, not Texas. Here are the Briseno factors, since no stories are actually quoting them.

---------------
Did those who knew the person best during the developmental stage--his family, friends, teachers, employers, authorities--think he was mentally retarded at that time, and, if so, act in accordance with that determination?

· Has the person formulated plans and carried them through or is his conduct impulsive?

· Does his conduct show leadership or does it show that he is led around by others?

· Is his conduct in response to external stimuli rational and appropriate, regardless of whether it is socially acceptable?

· Does he respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral or written questions or do his responses wander from subject to subject?

· Can the person hide facts or lie effectively in his own or others' interests?

· Putting aside any heinousness or gruesomeness surrounding the capital offense, did the commission of that offense require forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose?
----------------

Read Atkins and you will see that these precisely address the concerns of the Supreme Court (not those of John Steinbeck).

Finally, as for "planning" -- he did not just run into the guy at a gas station. He had threatened him beforehand, and told others that he was going to kill him. The victim begged for his life at the gas station, in front of numerous witnesses, after Wilson, in everybody's hearing, said, "Do you want to die right here?" The victim then ran away and was pursued by Wilson and his accomplices to a neighboring field. The witnesses shortly thereafter heard gunfire. The victim was later found dead in a field.

From all of this, you get that they "put him in a car" and that's the only evidence there is. You're throwing so much stuff out it's absolutely comical.

Who were the witnesses? Here:

Vanessa Zeno (who had known Wilson for 16 years, and personally saw him threaten and kidnap the victim)
Dennis Ware
Caroline and Coretta Robinson
Julius Lavergne

These people saw Wilson threaten to kill the victim, hit the victim, drag him into a car, and ask for a gun.

The witness Lewis, wife of accomplice Andrews, did testify that Wilson later said he had killed the victim and it was him, not Andrews; and I can agree that that testimony is not the strongest, given who it was (though juries are ultimately charged with deciding who is credible, obviously); but even without that, the rest of the evidence would have supported the conviction and sentencne.

In particular, you were blatantly lying when you said that the testimony of the wife, Lewis, was "all" that Texas had.

"In particular, you were blatantly lying when you said that the testimony of the wife, Lewis, was "all" that Texas had."

None of that is eye witness testimony to any murder. He was hit and put into a car. Two people were involved. One received a life sentence. This guy got executed. The only difference is the testimony of the former's wife, which you even claim is not strong. The idea that this 'evidence' supports the sentence is nonsense.

"Furthermore, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not "base" its standards on a Steinbeck novel."

They based them on bullshit, and invoked Mice and Men to do it. Atkins v. Virginia says mentally "retarded" people are often competent enough to take the witness stand and know right from wrong. The Briseno Factors are based on stereotype. That other people "thought" he was mentally retarded is a factor? Are you kidding me? And Texas allows execution if just one of these hokum factors are met.

Don't backpedal. You said,

----
"The only thing the state of Texas had on Wilson was the testimony of the *wife of his "accomplice" that Wilson "admitted" to doing it. That's it. That is all.
----

Now you're all, "Oh, well I meant, to distinguish" blah blah. What you said was a lie, and you'd have been happy to let it stand if I hadn't shown what BS it was.

As for distinguishing the killers -- no eyewitness testified. Even the wife was hearsay afterward. The fact is, both killers would have been eligible for the death penalty under Texas law. If one of them didn't get it, well, lucky him then. Even the testimony of those at the gas station was sufficient to demonstrate that Wilson was leading the enterprise. That would suffice, regardless whether he pulled the trigger.

"INSTRUCTED states to come up with standards BASED ON POPULAR CONCEPTIONS AND STANDARDS "

I've read the opinion several times now, and I found no such "instructions". More nonsense. All it said was that it left to the states the matter of enforcing the prohibition, of course it didn't say that that meant you could go ahead and execute the mentally "retarded" to your heart's content. Nor did the opinion bring up Texas, as you claimed.

I'm not backpedalling, you're just such a lynch mobber that you don't even care who is a murderer and who is not. There was no eye witness testimony to the murder. That is what I said. You don't even dispute that, yet you call me a liar. Either you're dishonest or you can't read. The only thing they have which pins this murder, as in Wilson did it, on Wilson is the wife of the guy serving a life sentence's testimony. You don't even dispute this, yet you call me a liar. The rest of crap you're posting about is circumstantial.

"If one of them didn't get it, well, lucky him then."

Can you get more glib? Never get on your soap box and lecture about how much you value life ever again.

I don't know why Putin33 is making me out to fully support this murderer's execution. While I do support there being a death penalty, I only support its use in cases where serial killers or something like the recent Colorado shooter are involved. Hardly what happened here. My previous statements where only dealing with the execution's properness as a matter of the law as it now is. It seems like it could have been, it seems like it could not have been. I don't know enough about the case and, frankly, will defer to the people who've spent the better part of twenty years dealing with this mess.

For anybody who gives a damn (not Semck and his fellow lynch mobbers), here is how the civilized world defines "retardation" (a term that should be discontinued, but I digress).

http://behavenet.com/node/21026

A. Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning: an IQ of approximately 70 or below on an individually administered IQ test (for infants, a clinical judgment of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning).

B. Concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning (i.e., the person's effectiveness in meeting the standards expected for his or her age by his or her cultural group) in ****at least two****(emphasis added) of the following areas: communication, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety.

You see that? Two areas. The defenders of Texan barbarism basically want "retarded" inmates to meet all of areas of adaptive deficiency.

"I've read the opinion several times now, and I found no such "instructions". More nonsense."

Oh really? Let me paste them for you then -- again. The opinion is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZO.html

"Not all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus. As was our approach in Ford v. Wainwright, with regard to insanity, “we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences.”"

Now, the opinion (being a "cruel and unusual punishment" case) is based on national consensus, and here they're saying they'll leave it to states to figure out how to codify and detect that national consensus.

As I said.

"Nor did the opinion bring up Texas, as you claimed. "

One of the really cool things about life, putin, is Ctrl+F. Here you go though. I'll paste for you again. I'm that nice.

"Much has changed since then [then = an earlier case where they said executing retarded persons was OK, since there was no national consensus otherwise]. Responding to the national attention received by the Bowden execution and our decision in Penry, state legislatures across the country began to address the issue. In 1990 Kentucky and Tennessee enacted statutes similar to those in Georgia and Maryland, as did New Mexico in 1991, and Arkansas, Colorado, Washington, Indiana, and Kansas in 1993 and 1994.12 In 1995, when New York reinstated its death penalty, it emulated the Federal Government by expressly exempting the mentally retarded.13 Nebraska followed suit in 1998.14 There appear to have been no similar enactments during the next two years, but in 2000 and 2001 six more States–South Dakota, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina–joined the procession.15 The Texas Legislature unanimously adopted a similar bill,16 and bills have passed at least one house in other States, including Virginia and Nevada."

See that last sentence? See how it mentions Texas? Cool, huh?

"There was no eye witness testimony to the murder. That is what I said."

Wow, you really think people can't scroll up, don't you? One more time, then. Here's what you said:

"BTW, as for this being an iron-clad "Wilson did it" case, it's not even close. There's no forensic evidence and no eye witness testimony. How people with a conscience are calling for someone to be executed on that basis, in addition to this being a violation of the court's prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment, is beyond me. The victim in this case died the morning after the supposed 'gunshot' was heard. The only thing the state of Texas had on Wilson was the testimony of the *wife of his "accomplice" that Wilson "admitted" to doing it. That's it. That is all."

Now -- you DID mention eyewitness testimony, early in this paragraph. But then you expand it -- see? At the bottom, you say,

***
The only thing the state of Texas had on Wilson was the testimony of the *wife of his "accomplice" that Wilson "admitted" to doing it. That's it. That is all.
***

"The only thing Texas has" means Texas has no additional evidence. Not just no eyewitness testimony -- if that's what you'd meant, you could have stopped after the first two sentences, because the wife's testimony isn't eyewitness either -- but no, you said that's "the only thing Texas has."

Which was a lie.

"The only thing they have which pins this murder, as in Wilson did it, on Wilson is the wife of the guy serving a life sentence's testimony. You don't even dispute this."

No. They have all the other witnesses who saw him kidnap the guy after threatening to kill him, and asking for a gun.

One more time: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE WAS THE TRIGGER MAN. The evidence (excluding the wife, even) suggests he probably was, but it doesn't matter. He was in charge of the operation to kidnap and kill, and if you're really arguing that, "Oh, these people drove up, beat him, said they would kill him, chased him across a field and threw him in a car, and he showed up dead of gunshots the next day, but there's every chance the incidents are unrelated," then ... well, then I have no more time for you.

Oh no, wait. I have no more time for you in any case. I've made my point. Any intelligent reader who's interested enough to plow through all this can easily see that you lied and are kicking up more and more nonsense to hide it. I'm out, bye.

I didn't claim you supported the execution anywhere. Another failure of reading comprehension. I responded to your comment that those who say that we should never execute the mentally retarded are 'oversimplifying' things. No, it's called the law of the land. Something you always say but perhaps only mean in selective cases.

It's exactly an oversimplification since it is the states which are tasked with defining what mental retardation is. That may be a dumb idea, but it is how things are.

I didn't lie. There was no eye witness testimony to any murder. The case is about murder, not hitting a guy and putting him in a car. I repeatedly said the only thing pinning the murder on Wilson as opposed to someone else was the guy's wife's self-interested and conflicting testimony. You claim it doesn't matter who did the murdering, fine. Evidently it matters to Texas, since the other guy wasn't executed.

That's convenient to say now after delving into this, but the law still says the mentally retarded can't be executed. That states differ as to what retardation means is another matter, but the law says they can't be executed.

What? If the states define what mental retardation means then they'll be different between states. So someone could be mentally retarded in California but not Texas, and therefore be eligible for the death penalty in Texas when they wouldn't be in California. That seems silly to me, but it's how things are. Just saying mentally-retarded-people-can't-be-executed-full-stop is an oversimplification. There is no universal LEGAL definition, despite what may exist in the scholarly literature. Again, probably a stupid state of affairs, but that's how things are right now so your arguments are mostly specious and wholly demagogic. Shocking.

That's not what you meant and you know it. You didn't even bring up the point about definitions until other people brought it up.

Anyway, Semck ran away, but there are no such 'instructions', his caps-locks fit to the contrary notwithstanding. Yay he found Texas. Evidently the Court was silly enough to believe that the law was actually a prohibition against executing the mentally retarded, not just a worthless bill with a Texas sized loophole.

It's exactly what I meant. What else could I mean? I didn't bring up definitions because I was planning on staying out of this tar baby thread and only started again once you misrepresented my views.

"Now, the opinion (being a "cruel and unusual punishment" case) is based on national consensus, and here they're saying they'll leave it to states to figure out how to codify and detect that national consensus."

Good midrashing. That's not what they said at all. They based their opinion that executing the mentally retarded was wrong on the fact that states across the country implemented legislation against it. They didn't then go ahead and say that states get to determine for themselves what the national consensus is. They said states define for themselves what the criteria of retardation is.

My last post: The court said there is a broad range of impaired offenders that everybody agrees is impaired and that it would be wrong to execute - this is the national consensus that keeps being brought up. There are people outside this broad range, who are none-the-less are impaired, that the Court is leaving to the states to deal with. Someone with an IQ 10 below the retardation threshold is not one of these cases. The court did not say that states get to determine for themselves what the national consensus re: standards of decency and humaneness are, that would be pointless to the point of absurdity.

"and just let the executioners kill whoever they please"

It's "whomever," not "whoever."

Also I'm just proud the state is reading! Really puts a dent in the ol' reputation there.