I discovered this story, which prompted a number of questions and concerns. This paragraph in particular caught my eye:

"Justices are reviewing the death sentence of Daryl Renard Atkins, convicted of carjacking and killing an airman in Virginia to get money for beer. One test showed Atkins had an IQ of 59. People who test 70 or below generally are considered mentally retarded."

First of all, here is a man who killed another man to get beer money. WHAT?? When will these completely senseless acts of violence end? Who the hell actually thinks to himself, "Hmm. I don't have the money to buy beer. I'd better stick someone up for the cash, instead of doing the sensible thing and asking a friend to lend me some money or buy me a beer"? The paragraph implies that the answer to this is, "Someone really stupid," as it goes on to say that the guy in question has an IQ of 59.

Fine, really stupid people will do really stupid things. But when did this guy's IQ get tested, anyway? Was it before or after he slaughtered someone in the middle of a field? This is important, because some people who do really stupid things are not, in fact, retarded. Some of them know that they are, in fact, quite smart and will use this to their advantage -- they will pretend to be stupid and score 59 on an IQ test to plead not guilty on account of mental retardation. As the article states in a later paragraph, "up to one-fourth of death row inmates may have mental retardation claims." This seems like a lot of mentally challenged citizens committing crimes. How many of the population of retarded Americans are usually considered dangerous, much less inclined to commit murder? There is definitely something odd going on there.

Furthermore, when the crime committed is murder -- and not just an accidental kind of murder -- one has to question the "mentally retarded" aspect once more. Would a mentally retarded person be coordinated enough to shoot a person to death? Granted, the article states that the victim was shot eight times, which might imply an inexpert gun handler, but would someone of questionable mental ability be able to plan such a murder? The victim was kidnapped, forced to withdraw money from a bank machine, and then taken into a field and shot. Without normal cognitive abilities, can a person plan something this elaborate? Even assuming that it was a spur of the moment idea, it's still an idea that requires some sort of cause-effect planning that seems elusive to most of the mentally disabled populace.

Finally, our esteemed President stated, "'We should never execute anybody who is retarded. And our court system protects people who don't understand the nature of the crime they committed.'" This is a troubling comment, since ignorance of the law is no excuse. 'Not understanding' the crime committed implies one of two things; either the person who committed the crime is faking his inability to understand, or he is actually not able to understand the crime because he was merely an accessory. It seems logical that a person of limited mental abilities could be dragged into a crime he didn't choose to commit, perhaps being told "stand here, hold this," while the actual perpetrator pulls the trigger. So it is incorrect to say that our system protects people who don't understand the nature of their crime, because the person in question either *does* understand, or was not knowingly involved in any crime to begin with. Accomplices are not viewed favorably, but serving time as an accessory to murder (rather than the trigger-man) is better than a death sentence.

In the end, the death penalty is abhorrent no matter who is being sentenced, but the idea that people can escape their punishment by pretending to be mentally challenged is equally disgusting.