Scalia's a bitch. The one-dimensional view of people with mental illness as "happy, gentle folks" is just as offensive as the oft-heard claims they are all violent, raving schizophrenics. I don't disagree with the claim that someone with mental retardation could premeditatedly murder someone... but is it with the same understanding of what that really means? I certainly doubt it.
Well, to be fair, this is people with retardation specifically. I'm sure that Scalia thinks that people with mental illness are violent, raving schizophrenics. He's got a one-dimensional view of all different kinds of populations!
There was actually a SEPARATE Supreme Court decision against executing people who are seriously mentally ill. I forget the case caption but it involved the state of Florida (that's also an interesting decision to read as the justice writing the majority opinion was totally horrified that anyone wanted to execute an insane person at all). I'm sure Scalia dissented in that one as well ;).
Debateable. I mean, retardation is in the DSM but on a totally different axis. Most people when referring to mental illness implicitly mean disorders that are on Axis I of the DSM (major mental disorders, developmental disorders and learning disabilities), whereas mental retardation is on Axis II (underlying pervasive/personality conditions).
Also they are considered different legally. Legal insanity can be caused by severe retardation, but basically means that the person has insufficient grip on reality to know what they're doing or what's being done to them. Someone who's innocent by reason of insanity is someone who didn't or couldn't know that they were committing a crime or that what they were doing was wrong. Someone who's too insane to be executed is someone who is so delusional that they don't know that they're going to be killed, why they're going to be killed, or what death means. The only reason someone that crazy ever got on death row in the first place, apparently, was because they developed that level of psychosis after being sentenced.
The mild mental retardation suffered by Atkins didn't mean he couln't understand what it meant to kill a person, or to be killed, it just meant that he was not able to reason about those things very well and therefore was less culpable than he would be if he had average mental abilities.
Very interesting. Particularly the legal definitions of insanity and what they mean in the context of a crime. Thanks for the info! I'll have to try and find that Florida case you mentioned; that one sounded really interesting as well.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:17 pm (UTC)There was actually a SEPARATE Supreme Court decision against executing people who are seriously mentally ill. I forget the case caption but it involved the state of Florida (that's also an interesting decision to read as the justice writing the majority opinion was totally horrified that anyone wanted to execute an insane person at all). I'm sure Scalia dissented in that one as well ;).
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:27 pm (UTC)Also they are considered different legally. Legal insanity can be caused by severe retardation, but basically means that the person has insufficient grip on reality to know what they're doing or what's being done to them. Someone who's innocent by reason of insanity is someone who didn't or couldn't know that they were committing a crime or that what they were doing was wrong. Someone who's too insane to be executed is someone who is so delusional that they don't know that they're going to be killed, why they're going to be killed, or what death means. The only reason someone that crazy ever got on death row in the first place, apparently, was because they developed that level of psychosis after being sentenced.
The mild mental retardation suffered by Atkins didn't mean he couln't understand what it meant to kill a person, or to be killed, it just meant that he was not able to reason about those things very well and therefore was less culpable than he would be if he had average mental abilities.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 03:21 pm (UTC)It is very interesting. I took a course on mental health law at UPenn School of Law and it was one of the best courses I'd ever taken.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 02:28 pm (UTC)