RESUMO
The Supreme Court recently decided that the death penalty as it applies to persons with mental retardation is not a violation of constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment as long as juries consider the convicted person's disabilities during trial proceedings. Advocates for persons with mental retardation have argued that because their disability reduces culpability in capital offenses, the death penalty is always inappropriate. In this paper we argued that the latter position makes unwarranted categorical assumptions about mental retardation, fails to consider the individualized and situation-specific determinants of culpability for a capital offense, and undermines the very assumptions required to restore respect and value for citizens with mental retardation as participants in society.
Assuntos
Pena de Morte/legislação & jurisprudência , Deficiência Intelectual , Prova Pericial/legislação & jurisprudência , Homicídio/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Defesa por Insanidade , Responsabilidade Legal , Estupro/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados UnidosRESUMO
Ten graduate students scored items from the comprehension, similarities, and vocabulary subtests. Five used the WISC manual anf five used the WISC-R manual. Higher percentages of interscorer agreement were obtained from the WISC-R group on all three subtests. An analysis of two-point discrepancies among scorers further supported the superiority of the WISC-R scoring standards over those the WISC.
