The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Hall v. Florida, an important (though little followed) case involving the standard for intellectual disability. Florida state law imposes a bright-line threshold test in cases of alleged incapacity. If the person has an IQ of 70 or above, the court will not consider such a disability claim. It is an approach that has been widely ridiculed by experts and now, in a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has ruled that such a rule violated the Eighth Amendment and runs counter to recognized scientific standards. My Supreme Court class reviewed Hall and reached the same conclusion, though the vote was almost unanimous. The class voted 13-1 to reverse lower court. The class however got it wrong on the prediction. In a close 8-6 vote, the class predicted that the Supreme Court would affirm.
The case involves a particularly gruesome crime scene that makes it difficult for most people to have much sympathy for the culprits. On February 21, 1978, Freddie Lee Hall, and his accomplice, Mark Ruffin, kidnaped, beat, raped, and murdered Karol Hurst. Hurst was a pregnant, 21-year-old newlywed. The two men then drove to a convenience store to rob it but encountered Lonnie Coburn, a sheriff’s deputy who attempted to apprehend them was subsequently killed. Hall received the death penalty for both murders, but his sentence for the Coburn murder was later reduced on account of insufficient evidence of premeditation. Hall v. Florida, 403 So. 2d 1319 , 1321 (Fla. 1981) (per curiam).
At the time of the sentence, the Supreme Court had not yet ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibits States from imposing the death penalty on persons with intellectual disability. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 340 (1989). Indeed, Florida law did not even recognize intellectual disability as a statutory mitigating factor.
The opinion is an important return to the area of intellectual disability since the Court’s 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia. In that case, the Court ruled that executing the mentally retarded violates the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Court left it to states on defining intellectual disability. In addition to Florida, Virginia and Kentucky also use this type of threshold test.
The majority reaffirmed the bar on executing the intellectually disabled:
No legitimate penological purpose is served by executing a person with intellectual disability. Id., at 317 , 320 . To do so contravenes the Eighth Amendment , for to impose the harshest of punishments on an intellectually disabled person violates his or her inherent dignity as a human being. “[P]unishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution.” Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 , 420 (2008). Rehabilitation, it is evident, is not an applicable rationale for the death penalty. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 183 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). As for deterrence, those with intellectual disability are, by reason of their condition, likely unable to make the calculated judgments that are the premise for the deterrence rationale. They have a “diminished ability” to “process information, to learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, or to control impulses . . . [which] make[s] it less likely that they can process the information of the possibility of execution as a penalty and, as a result, control their conduct based upon that information.” Atkins, 536 U.S., at 320 . Retributive values are also ill-served by executing those with intellectual disability. The diminished capacity of the intellectually disabled lessens moral culpability and hence the retributive value of the punishment. See id., at 319 (“If the culpability of the average murderer is insufficient to justify the most extreme sanction available to the State, the lesser culpability of the mentally retarded offender surely does not merit that form of retribution”).
A further reason for not imposing the death penalty on a person who is intellectually disabled is to protect the integrity of the trial process. These persons face “a special risk of wrongful execution” because they are more likely to give false confessions, are often poor witnesses, and are less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel. Id., at 320-321 . This is not to say that under current law persons with intellectual disability who “meet the law’s requirements for criminal responsibility” may not be tried and punished. Id., at 306 . They may not, however, receive the law’s most severe sentence. Id., at 318 .
Kennedy follows with a detailed discussion of the use (and the limits) of the IQ test:
The professionals who design, administer, and interpret IQ tests have agreed, for years now, that IQ test scores should be read not as a single fixed number but as a range. See D. Wechsler, The Measurement of Adult Intelligence 133 (3d ed. 1944) (reporting the range of error on an early IQ test). Each IQ test has a “standard error of measurement,” ibid., often referred to by the abbreviation “SEM.” A test’s SEM is a statistical fact, a reflection of the inherent imprecision of the test itself. See R. Furr & V. Bacharach, Psychometrics 118 (2d ed. 2014) (identifying the SEM as “one of the most important concepts in measurement theory”). An individual’s IQ test score on any given exam may fluctuate for a variety of reasons. These include the test-taker’s health; practice from earlier tests; the environment or location of the test; the examiner’s demeanor; the subjective judgment involved in scoring certain questions on the exam; and simple lucky guessing. See American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, R. Schalock et al., User’s Guide To Accompany the 11th Edition of Intellectual Disability: [*9] Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports 22 (2012) (hereinafter AAIDD Manual); A. Kaufman, IQ Testing 101, pp. 138-139 (2009).
The SEM reflects the reality that an individual’s intellectual functioning cannot be reduced to a single numerical score. For purposes of most IQ tests, the SEM means that an individual’s score is best understood as a range of scores on either side of the recorded score. The SEM allows clinicians to calculate a range within which one may say an individual’s true IQ score lies. See APA Brief 23 (“SEM is a unit of measurement: 1 SEM equates to a confidence of 68% that the measured score falls within a given score range, while 2 SEM provides a 95% confidence level that the measured score is within a broader range”). A score of 71, for instance, is generally considered to reflect a range between 66 and 76 with 95% confidence and a range of 68.5 and 73.5 with a 68% confidence. See DSM-5, at 37 (“Individuals with intellectual disability have scores of approximately two standard deviations or more below the population mean, including a margin for measurement error (generally +5 points). . . . [T]his involves a score of 65-75 (70 ± 5)”); APA Brief 23 (“For example, the average SEM for the WAIS-IV is 2.16 IQ test points and the average SEM for the Stanford-Binet 5 is 2.30 IQ test points (test manuals report SEMs by different age groupings; these scores are similar, but not identical, often due to sampling error)”). Even when a person has taken multiple tests, each separate score must be assessed using the SEM, and the analysis of multiple IQ scores jointly is a complicated endeavor. See Schneider, Principles of Assessment of Aptitude and Achievement, in The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment 286, 289-291, 318 (D. Saklofske, C. Reynolds, V. Schwean, eds. 2013). In addition, because the test itself may be flawed, or administered in a consistently flawed manner, multiple examinations may result in repeated similar scores, so that even a consistent score is not conclusive evidence of intellectual functioning.
Despite these professional explanations, Florida law used the test score as a fixed number, thus barring further consideration of other evidence bearing on the question of intellectual disability. For professionals to diagnose-and for the law then to determine-whether an intellectual disability exists once the SEM applies and the individual’s IQ score is 75 or below the inquiry would consider factors indicating whether the person had deficits in adaptive functioning. These include evidence of past performance, environment, and upbringing.
The decision obviously curtails the right of the states to set such standards, something that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., called a “sea change” in the court’s approach. What is interesting is that Alito takes a shot at the experts in this field in calling them elitist and calls for the law to follow the view of the common people on such questions: “What counts are our society’s standards — which is to say, the standards of the American people — not the standards of professional associations, which at best represent the views of a small professional elite.” Of course, mental and intellectual disability is capable of objective testing and measurement. While it is hardly precise and not without controversy, the suggestion that we should reject the view of experts as “elitists” sounds like something you would hear on cable news from commentators like Sarah Palin.
Writing for Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, and Thomas, Alito wrote:
First, because the views of professional associations often change, 7 tying Eighth Amendment law to these views will lead to instability and continue to fuel pro-tracted litigation. This danger is dramatically illustrated by the most recent publication of the APA, on which the Court relies. This publication fundamentally alters the first prong of the longstanding, two-pronged definition of intellectual disability that was embraced by Atkins and has been adopted by most States. In this new publication, the APA discards “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” as an element of the intellectual-disability test. 8 Elevating the APA’s current views to constitutional significance therefore throws into question the basic approach that Atkins approved and that most of the States have followed.
It is also noteworthy that changes adopted by professional associations are sometimes rescinded. For example, in 1992 the AAIDD extended the baseline “intellectual functioning cutoff” from an “IQ of 70 or below” to a “score of approximately 70 to 75 or below.” AAIDD 11th ed. 10 (Table 1.3) (boldface deleted); see 2 Kaplan & Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry 3449 (B. Sadock, V. Sadock, & P. Ruiz eds., 9th ed. 2009) (hereinafter Kaplan & Sadock’s). That change “generated much controversy’; by 2000, “only 4 states used the 1992 AAIDD definition, with 44 states continuing to use the 1983 definition.” Ibid. And in the 2002 AAIDD, the baseline “IQ cut-off was changed” back to approximately “70 or less.” Ibid.
Second, the Court’s approach implicitly calls upon the Judiciary either to follow every new change in the thinking of these professional organizations or to judge the validity of each new change. Here, for example, the Court tacitly makes the judgment that the diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability that prevailed at the time when Atkins was decided are no longer legitimate. The publications that Atkins cited differ markedly from more recent editions now endorsed by the Court. See 536 U.S., at 308 , n. 3.
Third, the Court’s approach requires the Judiciary to determine which professional organizations are entitled to special deference. And what if professional organizations disagree? The Court provides no guidance for deciding which organizations’ views should govern.
Fourth, the Court binds Eighth Amendment law to definitions of intellectual disability that are promulgated for use in making a variety of decisions that are quite different from the decision whether the imposition of a death sentence in a particular case would serve a valid penological end. In a death-penalty case, intellectual functioning is important because of its correlation with the ability to understand the gravity of the crime and the purpose of the penalty, as well as the ability to resist a momentary impulse or the influence of others. See id., at 318 , 320. By contrast, in determining eligibility [*21] for social services, adaptive functioning may be much more important. Cf. DSM-IV-TR, at xxxvii (clinical “considerations” may not be “relevant to legal judgments” that turn on “individual responsibility”); DSM-5, at 20 (similar). Practical problems like these call for legislative judgments, not judicial resolution.
In our class, we discussed the need to get beyond the anger and disgust over the crime committed by Hall to focus on this question of the standard for intellectual disability. In the end, the class was virtually unanimous that the test applied by Florida was arbitrary and would deny the use of the defense to some defendants who were clearly disabled. While it is true that this is a difficult question, the Florida law was not viewed as a close question. By barring the ability of the defendant to submit evidence of disability because he received a 71 seemed entirely without medical or logical basis. As Kennedy notes, “Intellectual disability is a condition, not a number.”
Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
davidm2575,
“Mark, LOL. I do hope you understand it was purely a joke!”
Oh, sure; I get it now!
————————————–
Paul,
“Mark – most enlightened historians refer to it as the Medieval Period. However, it really was not very dark. There was no kicking and screaming. Mark, I think at this point you are out of your depth.”
There are many centuries from the fall of Rome to the beginnings of the concept of state. It is commonly referred to as feudal.
You confuse this nine-hundred some years of historic dearth with the medieval period, which came much later.
Mark – I consider the Medieval Period to start with the fall of Rome to the start of the Renaissance.
David – there are a few people whose graves I would either like to dance on or do an unspeakable act. I know the impulse. 😉
You may not know, Mark, but I am working on my magnum opus entitled, “A scientific theory of intelligent design.” Anyway, my wife laughed and stopped yelling at me. Darwin’s grave was a big reason I went to visit Westminster Abbey.
“Good point, Paul.”
Gag me.
“I want to be able to tell people that I danced on his grave.”
There ya go! Out in the open now, huh?
Mark, LOL. I do hope you understand it was purely a joke!
davidm2575,
“Historians always present history thru a lens and project an understanding that creates a certain perspective.”
So do creationists. The rest is your usual verbose dribble.
As to “world,” your perspective is noted, though the use of initial words says more than your explanation after the fact.
——————————————
Paul C. Schulte,
“For those who study enough history, the ‘Dark Ages’ were not very dark. They were very enlightened and led to the Renaissance.”
Kicking and screaming, every century!
davidm2575,
It’s also interesting how your definition of a creator is limited to a world:
“A creationist is simply someone who is convinced that a Creator created our world and the natural laws that govern it.”
Have you not heard of the universe?
Mark Kennis wrote: “It’s also interesting how your definition of a creator is limited to a world: … Have you not heard of the universe?”
Look up the word “world” in a few dictionaries. I was using the word in its broadest definition:
WordWeb: “Everything that exists anywhere”
OED: “the material universe or all that exists; everything.”
davidm2575:
“A creationist is simply someone who is convinced that a Creator created our world and the natural laws that govern it.”
Thanks for clearing that up davidm2575. I always wondered what “creationist” meant.
Your historical perspective of science/church/knowledge is a bit warped.
The church, in the beginning, (meaning RC), kept any scientific knowledge of the world from prior civilizations, (like those pesky Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, and, at times, Romans), to itself for a millennium (roughly counting); slowly eking out admissions when forced to.
This period is generally referred to as the Dark Ages. Ring a bell?
Yet, you point this out as a good thing; as if the church (see above) were the stalwart practitioners of knowledge instead of being the censors.
Mark Kennis wrote: “This period is generally referred to as the Dark Ages. Ring a bell? Yet, you point this out as a good thing; as if the church (see above) were the stalwart practitioners of knowledge instead of being the censors.”
Historians always present history thru a lens and project an understanding that creates a certain perspective. When I first started reading history decades ago, I never understood this. As I started reading different histories from very different cultures, I could hardly understand what I was reading. History written by the Roman Catholic church was very different from the history of the Orthodox church, which in turn was different from Islamic historians. Soon I learned to read in between the lines and see the facts of history separate from the narrative the historian was trying to project. A study of the “Dark Ages” is a prime example of a term that originated one way, was then flipped 180 degrees to mean the opposite, and has throughout history been used to basically create bias in people’s minds toward particular groups. That bias would be either from the Christian who spoke about cultures lacking Christianity as being part of the “Dark Ages,” or secularists decrying the influence of Christianity as causing a period of intellectual darkness, or some attributing it to the decline of the Roman empire and lack of an imperial emperor.
In regards to education, most of our culture have been indoctrinated to believe that religion has hindered education, have been censors of knowledge, and have pretty much persecuted every freethinker who ever existed. The truth is that the Christian religion believed and taught that Christ was the logos, that in him was bound all knowledge and wisdom. This is what sparked them to establish centers of education, because it was by studying nature and furthering the efforts of science that God could be better known. Religion never considered that there was any conflict between science and nature. That conflict appeared later when men began to argue that the natural laws themselves were enough to explain everything, and that the concept of God was completely unnecessary.
It is a fact of history that the church established virtually all our educational institutions in the West. I realize that this does not go along with your indoctrination that religion censored information, but a comprehensive study of history reveals that this is the truth. Censorship indeed did happen as authorities exercised their powers over these centers of education, but that does not mean that they were against education. On the contrary, it was their desire to purge education of false ideas that caused the censorship. Science today does the same thing as they enjoy the imprimatur of government sanction.
For those who study enough history, the ‘Dark Ages’ were not very dark. They were very enlightened and led to the Renaissance.
Good point, Paul. People go into a churches to view Michelangelo’s greatest works, to view Leonardo Da Vinci’s masterpieces, etc., yet they never ponder why a church. I’m not giving a plug for religion. I just think we should respect truth.
Charles Darwin probably did more to separate science from religion than any man alive, yet with the education most people receive today, they do not realize that the only degree Darwin ever earned was a degree in theology, not biology. And even Darwin’s grave is found inside a church. I’ve stood on it. Actually, I was walking on it when my wife started yelling at me to look where I was walking, that I was walking on a grave. I told her, don’t worry, I know, it’s Charles Darwin’s grave. I want to be able to tell people that I danced on his grave. 🙂
Mark – most enlightened historians refer to it as the Medieval Period. However, it really was not very dark. There was no kicking and screaming. Mark, I think at this point you are out of your depth.
davidm:
Calling Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin creationists makes as much sense as calling Francis of Assisi an animal rights activist.
Mike Appleton wrote: “Calling Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin creationists makes as much sense as calling Francis of Assisi an animal rights activist.”
I would say that Francis of Assisi was a better animal rights activist than most today.
A creationist is simply someone who is convinced that a Creator created our world and the natural laws that govern it. There is no doubt that both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were creationists. Their writings make it abundantly clear that they were convinced of the existence of a Creator. Jefferson established a professor at the University of Virginia and charged him specifically with the duties of teaching students the proofs of the existence of the Creator. Some of his legislation references the Creator, including our Declaration of Independence. What about you, Mike? Lay your cards on the table for us please. Are you are creationist or are you an atheist?
Paul,
“Secular humanists have filed to get a church registered. I have not seen the doctrines so I do not know what that particular ‘church’ is professing. However, I do know that secular humanists are in the government and hold sway there. As do you.”
*****
Wow! Way to make your case. BTW, who comprises that group of “you and others” who consider secular humanism to be a religion?
Elaine M wrote: “… who comprises that group of “you and others” who consider secular humanism to be a religion?”
Justice Hugo Black listed secular humanism among those religions that do not teach a God in Torcaso v. Watkins. So include that U.S. Supreme Court Justice in Paul’s group that recognizes Secular Humanism as an atheistic religion.
Paul,
What supernatural power or powers do secular humanists believe created the universe? Do secular humanists have an institutionalized system of beliefs? Do secular humanists have a spiritual leader? What are the doctrines of the “religion” of secular humanism? Go ahead and make the case that secular humanism holds sway with the state. Be my guest.
Secular humanists have filed to get a church registered. I have not seen the doctrines so I do not know what that particular ‘church’ is professing. However, I do know that secular humanists are in the government and hold sway there. As do you.
Elaine wrote: “What are the doctrines of the “religion” of secular humanism?”
I tried to post some of the dogma from the American Humanist website, but it would not go through. For the answer to your question, please check out the Humanist Manifesto I:
http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
davidm2575
Elaine M wrote: “Yes, the religious elites found Galileo guilty of heresy and sentenced him to life imprisonment.”
davidm:
Being “religious” had nothing to do with it. I hope you understand that the Church at that time was intimately connected with science. The Church established the universities and paid the salaries of all scientists, including Galileo. The Church literally paid for both Galileo’s education and career. His grave today lies in a church in Florence, the Basilica of Santa Croce. I saw it there myself just months ago.
Science eventually divorced itself from the Church, and government took over the role of paying scientists. The elites in authority today might not be religious, but they operate by the same motivation as the elites of Galileo’s time. It is a case of power corrupts. Now they vote to declare Creationist theories heresy and the laws are crafted to censor the teaching of these theories in public education. Scientists who embrace such theories are ostracized from publication and fired from their jobs, just like Galileo was. The players change, the terminology changes, but the effects are the same.
*****
Elaine m.:
Religion had nothing to do with it? Here…I’ll re-post something from my earlier comment:
“This time, Galileo’s technical argument didn’t win the day. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: ‘We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.’”
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy
I fail to see how religion had nothing to do with Galileo’s trial and his being found guilty of heresy. Yes, the Catholic Church was intimately connected with many European states. The church held great power. I think it’s an excellent example that provides the best reason for there being a separation of church and state. Theocracies don’t allow for freedom of religion and freedom to believe in new scientific information and discoveries when they conflict with the church’s teachings/doctrine.
*****
davidm2575
Mike Appleton wrote: “Creationism is not rejected as heresy; it is rejected as science.”
I grant you that heresy is religious jargon, but don’t let science off the hook over semantics. The result is basically the same. Elites vote on what they will allow to be taught and censorship is the end result.
*****
The word “heresy” is jargon? Really? Charging Galileo with heresy and sentencing him to lifelong house arrest was the will of the Catholic Church. I’d say it’s a good thing that religion doesn’t hold sway with the state in this country as it did in Europe during Galileo’s time.
Elaine – I, along with others, consider secular humanism a religion. I think you could make the case that secular humanism holds sway with the state.
Elaine, I’m not saying that religion was not involved in the trial of Galileo. In fact, many analysts say that what sunk Galileo was his intruding into theology and lecturing the doctors of theology in an arrogant fashion. My point was that the forces at work that had him treated wrongly had more to do with people in AUTHORITY flexing their muscles of power rather than RELIGION.
Look at religion now. Where are their trials now? Where is the inquisition? Without authority, religion does not vote to ban anyone for what they teach. They don’t even have ecclesiastical courts anymore. That’s what I mean by saying that it is not religion but authority that is the problem. Today, the place where we now see the kind of censorship and corruption that the Catholic Church did is in secular government. Government and science does not need religion in order to be a force which violates our civil liberties. Religion and government did it in the past, but science and government does the same thing today.
Paul C, Why would the state feel sanctification? Are not they just doing what they perceive to be their jobs? Also, I just don’t get those that feel sanctified by executions. Many religions oppose the death penalty.
Damn autocorrect. 🙂
Paul C. Schulte: “bettykath – the families of the victim and the state feel satisfaction at the death of a murderer.”
Whether they know it or not, even those who feel satisfaction at their participation in the execution are diminished by that satisfaction. Some of them recognize that the execution didn’t bring them the satisfaction that they sought.
Paul C: ” bettykath – the families of the victim and the state feel satisfaction at the death of a murderer.” Not necessarily true – That only applies to those that subscribe to an “eye for an eye” mentality and to states that still use the death penalty.
SWM – if the state and the families of the victim feel sanctification, that is enough for me. I really don’t care what their philosophy is to get there.
Paul C.:
They are indeed used in politics all the time, which means that they are used improperly.
Mike A – language changes constantly. You cannot make a blanket statement that a word is being used wrongly if it has been used in that context over time. Even dictionaries are at least a year out of date. The OED meets yearly to decide which words it will accept, but that does not mean that it is the be all and end all of language usage.
“[P]unishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution.”
As stated, rehabilitation, isn’t applicable in discussing the death penalty.
Neither is deterrence. Texas has been the leader in executions for many years and, many years and executions later, they are still the leader, so where is the deterrence?
That leaves retribution. I don’t see how becoming a killer in order to punish for killing is justified, ever. The problem isn’t just what it does to the person being killed, it is what it does to our society as a whole. Each execution takes a part of the soul of everyone involved, especially when so many innocent people are being executed. Those involved include, specifically, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the experts who testify, the jurors, the judges, the wardens, the prison staff, the actual administrators of the lethal dose, the doctors who determine that the prisoner is dead, the families of the prisoner and the families of the victims. I see no benefit. None. There is an alternative to protect society without diminishing it.
Life without possibility of parole removes the person from society and the possibility of committing another crime. It also allows for the possibility of rehabilitation even if the person isn’t allowed to be free. And, of course, it allows for an oops, when it is found that the person didn’t commit the crime.
bettykath – the families of the victim and the state feel satisfaction at the death of a murderer.
davidm2575
Elaine M wrote: “Yes, the religious elites found Galileo guilty of heresy and sentenced him to life imprisonment.”
Being “religious” had nothing to do with it. I hope you understand that the Church at that time was intimately connected with science. The Church established the universities and paid the salaries of all scientists, including Galileo. The Church literally paid for both Galileo’s education and career. His grave today lies in a church in Florence, the Basilica of Santa Croce. I saw it there myself just months ago.
Science eventually divorced itself from the Church, and government took over the role of paying scientists. The elites in authority today might not be religious, but they operate by the same motivation as the elites of Galileo’s time. It is a case of power corrupts. Now they vote to declare Creationist theories heresy and the laws are crafted to censor the teaching of these theories in public education. Scientists who embrace such theories are ostracized from publication and fired from their jobs, just like Galileo was. The players change, the terminology changes, but the effects are the same.
=======================
Interesting observation.
I see this phenomenon that you and Elaine M have commented on largely as a result of the fusion of church and state.
The culture of the area of that time had a religious hierarchy at the highest level of government.
That governmental structure tends to perpetuate the status quo, which is generally antithetical to scientific discovery.
Justice Alito expressed religious sentiment from that time, which still persists in some circles in the form of the teachings of Descartes under the heading of dualism.
This is why psychology in general has improved more than religion has, concerning notions of cognition in general and the brain specifically.
“During the 4th century BC Aristotle thought that, while the heart was the seat of intelligence, the brain was a cooling mechanism for the blood. He reasoned that humans are more rational than the beasts because, among other reasons, they have a larger brain to cool their hot-bloodedness.” (Wikipedia, History of Neuroscience).
Upon having a separation of church and state, science can move on and cast off the superstitions still expressed by government officials like Justice Alito, who wrote the dissent for the conservative fundamentalists on the court in the instant case.
Psychology has moved on to now consider the brain to be the primary locus of cognition, and to fuse various sciences into the dynamics of psychology.
That is, to base psychology on knowledge of the brain and its functions:
(Wikipedia, “Biological Psychiatry”). It would be a mistake to bring superstition back into psychology and government, because both would then atrophy.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – if that is an example of Stanford’s psychology …
============================
Actually it shows what the intellectually timid would call “hard science” deep in the foundation of Stanford’s psychology program.
Dr. Sapolsky informs from that perspective:
(Wikipedia, Robert Sapolsky).
Dredd – 1) you are using Wikipedia, which no one should trust and I don’t. 2) just because you call the janitors ‘sanitary engineers’ does not make them either sanitary or engineers.
At my university, the theatre department used the English department for their Shakespeare courses. That did not mean they were part of the English department or that teacher was part of the theatre department. Just that they decided to share a course.
Darren Smith
Dredd, I recovered your comment.
Folks, Dredd’s comment is above at 6:17.
========================
Thanks Darren.
I agree with the spirit of this decision. A 70 vs a 71 amounting to a person being executed or not; draconian at the very least. I can’t imagine the human mind being measuable to that degree of granularity especially given there must a standard range of error within most systems of measurements.
I might be incorrect yet I imagine the human brain as being more analog than digital and using a single integer as being kill or not kill is too error prone to be reasonable.
Darren Smith wrote: “I agree with the spirit of this decision. A 70 vs a 71 amounting to a person being executed or not; draconian at the very least. I can’t imagine the human mind being measuable to that degree of granularity especially given there must a standard range of error within most systems of measurements.”
Darren, you really should read the dissenting opinion. There was not just one test. There were several tests given and he always scored over 70. The margin of error was something around two and a half, if memory serves me correctly. Furthermore, this threshold was simply a threshold for being able to present more evidence for disability being a mitigating factor in sentencing. I’ve known a lot of people with a 70 IQ. I do not think that is an unreasonable threshold. Furthermore, he can take the IQ test more times if he wants to. The court never said he could not submit a new IQ test.
After beating, raping, and killing 21 year old pregnant newlywed Karol Hurst, the man robbed a store and in the course of that killed a sheriff’s deputy. I would think that you would want to see some eye for an eye, life for a life, justice for that. So the families of these slain are suppose to accept that the murderer of their loved one was so close to being stupid that the highest court in the land won’t let him be put to death until it is proven that he was smart enough to know better?