Why is it inhumane to kill the stupid? In the case of animals, we have exactly the opposite reaction, it is wrong to kill clever monkeys, but fine to kill stupid fish, wrong to kill clever dogs, right to kill stupid turkeys*. Yet in the case of humans, we allow an IQ test to snatch one out of the executioner's hands. It is not because they lack the mental capacity to form intent, as otherwise they would not have been convicted. And it is not because they fall under the loose rubric of insanity, as the inane do not end up on death row either. The fact is that for some reason we have decided that, even if you are guilty, were found to have formed the requisite intent, and have sufficient aggravating factors to face execution, if a test says you are too stupid, then we can't execute you.

I honestly can't make sense of it.

Actually, I have long argued against these status related defenses, retardation, insanity, incompetence and so on. In most cases, the only evidence is a test, or tests, administered after the person is charged or convicted, at which time they have every interest in scoring in a self-serving way.

Allow me to provide an example.

When I was a teenager, my parents were divorced and, as my life was changing in ways I found displeasing, I was a big unhappy about it. When combined with normal teenage truculence, I suppose it looked a bit like depression to my parents, who suggested I see a therapist. At the time, I was not particularly fond of the idea, so I decided to play a game with my therapist. I read up on symptoms of specific disorders and decided to see if I could make him give a specific diagnosis. And, sure enough, after the first session, he told my parents exactly what I expected. It was enough for me to convince them that it was a waste of time, as anyone who could be fooled by a sixteen year old really should not be dispensing advice.

And that is the problem with diagnoses of insanity, or of subnormal intelligence. The convict has a motivation to score a particular way, and therapists, being human, can be deceived. Worse than that, many in the mental health professions, being firmly on the left, are open to skewing results which fit with their preconceptions. Being opposed to executions, or believing prisons should be centered more on rehabilitation than punishment, they may be even m ore amenable to a diagnosis which achieves those ends. And so we end up with prisoners being found incompetent to stand trial, or being ineligible to execution due to a sudden drop in IQ.

Now some will say "we don't base it entirely on tests, there is other evidence", to which I reply, what other evidence? Usually the additional evidence consists of proof that the criminal was a trouble maker, with added testimony about his insanity or retardation from friends and family. In other words, we accept psychological evaluations from people whose alibi testimony we would discount. Yet, on the basis of testimony from friends, tests he took after arrest, and evidence that the prisoner was a trouble maker, we conclude that he is either insane or retarded and subject to a lesser punishment.

I have written before that I do not understand why murder in the heat of passion is less of a crime than premeditated murder, as it seems that those who kill in a rage are more dangerous, as they obviously cannot be discouraged even by serving time. I have also often argued that those who cannot tell right form wrong need to be in prison more than those who can. But this situation truly makes a joke of the law. Basically, anyone who is clever enough to falsify a test, is then declared too stupid to be executed or too crazy to stand trial. It makes very little sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------

* As I am sure my wife is going to read this and take me to task for calling fish and turkeys stupid, I want to clarify. The general opinion is that they are stupid, I am not making any claims one way or the other, though I do have to say from personal experience that popular myths about turkeys' stupidity are completely false.

---------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I have written before promising to take a more comprehensive look at the entire concept of insanity in our legal system, but so far I have not done so. As I also promised on my other blog  to explain my opposition to involuntary commitment and other mental health laws, perhaps I shall merge the two and write soon on the entire topic of the concept of insanity in our legal system.

I also intend today to write a bit more about the topics raised in my final post, the way our efforts to be "fair" in sentencing produce results which from a utilitarian view are completely wrong.