Woman with 72 IQ is executed

[divagreen]

I came across this article, and found it disturbing...

 

Article

 

Anybody with an IQ below 70 may not be executed, but this woman with an IQ of 72 was...in fact she was the alleged "mastermind" behind the crime .

 

What do you guys think?

[John Cuthber]

If you look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

you can find a list of countries that still use the death penalty. It's mainly the "axis of evil" a few "failed states" and the US.

Most countries have dropped the death penalty because it's simply wrong. The IQ doesn't (or shouldn't) matter.

(I'm a bit shocked to see Japan on the list)

[Moontanman]

I thought it was interesting that the Iranian president weighed in on this as comparable to a woman being stoned to death for adultery in his country. Her own daughter was part of the sex for murder scheme and she got time for her participation as well. I'm not sure if the death penalty is anything more than revenge for the victims but this woman did indeed orchestrate a double murder and used her self and her daughter as sex payments, hard to really be sympathetic. You have to wonder how smart the daughter is as well...

[CaptainPanic]

I do not understand how the IQ is related to the penalty that someone receives.

 

Aren't all people equal to the law?

[Mr Skeptic]

I do not understand how the IQ is related to the penalty that someone receives.

 

Aren't all people equal to the law?

 

Presumably similar to an insanity defense.

[needimprovement]

I came across this article, and found it disturbing...

 

Article

 

Anybody with an IQ below 70 may not be executed, but this woman with an IQ of 72 was...in fact she was the alleged "mastermind" behind the crime .

 

What do you guys think?

 

Bearing in mind the IQ test itself is flawed and has a margin of error at least 10 points either way. Reminds me of a thread "Do you trust Is IQ test?".

 

****

What seems stupid to me is that there is no consistent law across the country. The odd federal system means it was too bad she committed a crime in a state which has the death penalty. In a different state she would be given life.

Edited September 25, 2010 by needimprovement

[Marat]

The law always operates with broad categories and bright line distinctions since it has to operate as an efficient system of public administration, and it also has to command general assent. Both of these goals would be undermined if law tried to be scientific and make fine distinctions to reflect the continuous degrees of variation in moral capacity throughout the society. To be truly scientific in measuring the genuine moral responsibility of people, the law would have to vary by the IQ, education, socio-economic background, race, gender, adrenalin and testosterone levels, neuroanatomy, and culture of the offender, until we finally had a legal system that was more a measure of what the offender was than of what he had done.

 

If the law serves justice, it has to vindicate the right. If a criminal by his act violates the right, the role of the state, as the embodiment of justice, has to be to negate the implicit vindication of the wrong by the criminal. This means that the state must inflict a punishment on the offender which cancels the offender's cancellation of the rights of others, since only a cancellation of a cancellation of right is just. In the case of murder, since the murderer has cancelled the full right to exist in another person, the only way for the state to vindicate the right of innocent people to exist is to cancel the full right of the murderer to exist. To do anything less would devalue the innocent victim's right to exist and would display the state as lacking in respect for innocent human life. (This is what G. W. F. Hegel says, anyway.)

[divagreen]

Another article

 

As the date of her execution drew near, Lewis' lawyers argued that the courts had ignored critical evidence, including an exam that showed she was borderline mentally challenged, and a confession by one of the other men convicted in the murders that he had manipulated her to go along with the crime.

 

So how was she the "mastermind"?

 

Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School and one of the nation's leading death penalty experts, said Lewis' role in the slayings was undeniable but the death penalty was "disproportionate" compared to the sentences her co-conspirators received.

 

"Her two male co-conspirators, who actually carried out the murders, got life sentences, Denno told the Daily News.

 

Hmmm...

[needimprovement]

I don't believe anyone should be executed, but if the state is going to impose that penalty, IQ is relevant for two reasons.

 

First, it is always relevant to look at whether the person comitting the crime really was capable of understanding what they were doing and how wrong it was. If they are not, that does not excuse the crime but may mitigate the punishment.

 

Second, it was particularly important in this case. The murders were carried out by two men. Her role was in letting them into the house. The plan was to cash out the victim's finances and (I think) take the insurance money. One of the men was a career criminal who tested with a high IQ. But he claimed that this drug-addicted and borderline mentally handicapped woman was the mastermind of the operation and the men were mere pawns. The men got life in prison, she got the death penalty.

[random]

oh yeah she planned the whole thing yep uh huh (sarcasm) What a joke sounds like a he said she said matter and the judge took the smarter to be more credible.

[lemur]

The problem with the low iq defense in modern criminal justice is that attorneys would council their clients to fail an iq exam as part of a defense "strategy." That ruins the legitimacy of the defense for people who really don't understand what was wrong with what they did.

[A Tripolation]

I heard this woman speak. She was not mentally slow in a way that would make her unable to know right from wrong. She knew she was helping to murder people. She has no respect for life and is therefore not deserving of life.

[Moontanman]

I heard this woman speak. She was not mentally slow in a way that would make her unable to know right from wrong. She knew she was helping to murder people. She has no respect for life and is therefore not deserving of life.

 

 

I agree, she was perfectly aware of what she was doing but I have to wonder about her daughter...

[A Tripolation]

I agree, she was perfectly aware of what she was doing but I have to wonder about her daughter...

 

And I will have to agree with that, sir.

[divagreen]

I heard this woman speak. She was not mentally slow in a way that would make her unable to know right from wrong. She knew she was helping to murder people. She has no respect for life and is therefore not deserving of life.

 

While the two people who actually performed the crime received life sentences?

 

One of the killers actually confessed that they had manipulated the woman into an agreement of the crime...why is the death penalty applied in this case only unilateral?

[mississippichem]

Not making a comment on the ethics of the death penalty. But I feel, unless someone has a mental retardation that is extremely obvious, IQ shouldn't have much sway in deciding their punishment (whatever that may be). Once IQ matters in determining your punishment, then one is faced with the highly arbitrary decision of deciding where the "handicap-cutoff" is. I mean is it 70, 73, 72.8734219 ? Then you've got the margin of error to deal with as was mentioned in an earlier post.

 

If murderer A has an IQ of 69, and murderer B has an IQ of 72, is murderer A spared the harsh penalty because he can solve a puzzle just a little worse than murderer B? This just seems very arbitrary to me.

[Mr Skeptic]

But I feel, unless someone has a mental retardation that is extremely obvious, IQ shouldn't have much sway in deciding their punishment (whatever that may be).

 

Well there is the detail that low IQ is the definition of mental retardation, or rather used to be but now they added a new component to the definition. 72 is just above the borderline for mild retardation.

[A Tripolation]

 

Anybody with an IQ below 70 may not be executed, but this woman with an IQ of 72 was...in fact she was the alleged "mastermind" behind the crime .

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

While the two people who actually performed the crime received life sentences?

 

One of the killers actually confessed that they had manipulated the woman into an agreement of the crime...why is the death penalty applied in this case only unilateral?

 

You asked what people thought of this woman being executed based on her IQ. I stated my opinion. The fact that the two actual murderers didn't receive the death penalty has no bearing on the fact that I believe she should be executed and that she knows right from wrong.

 

For the record, I think all three should be killed. Those two got off lightly because of a plea bargain. But that's not what you were asking.

[Dimdims]

The law about the IQ is, as mentioned earlier, flawed, as people fail the test on purpose. I agree with the woman being executed as she knew what was right and what was wrong, but i only agree with this as people in the same situation as her in the past have suffered the same fate. What i fail to understand is giving people life sentences. I personally feel that giving someone a life sentence is worse than the death sentence, as what the judge is basically saying is: we are going to kill you, but you will have to suffer for the rest of your life first.

 

I'm not a massive fan of the death penalty, as by sentencing someone to death, you are actualy stooping down to their level. The woman admitted she was wrong, so why not give her a second chance. In some cases, the death penalty is appropriate, but i feel that if the death penalty is to stay in effect, then the law should be revised, as it is unfair on some people

[divagreen]

You asked what people thought of this woman being executed based on her IQ. I stated my opinion. The fact that the two actual murderers didn't receive the death penalty has no bearing on the fact that I believe she should be executed and that she knows right from wrong.

 

For the record, I think all three should be killed. Those two got off lightly because of a plea bargain. But that's not what you were asking.

 

Thank you for opining!

 

I believe my original question was open ended..."what do you guys think?"

 

Her alleged crime was for masterminding...with a 72 IQ...do you not see the discrepancy with this allegation? 72 is 2 points above mental retardation and a handicap.

 

I think that the other two perpetrators' sentencing holds relevance in order to keep perspective as to why she was sentenced to a death penalty in the first place.

 

I think that the death penalty was misappropriated in this situation.

[A Tripolation]

Her alleged crime was for masterminding...with a 72 IQ...do you not see the discrepancy with this allegation? 72 is 2 points above mental retardation and a handicap.

 

I think that the other two perpetrators' sentencing holds relevance in order to keep perspective as to why she was sentenced to a death penalty in the first place.

 

I think that the death penalty was misappropriated in this situation.

 

She probably didn't mastermind the intricate details of the murder. But she is more than capable of wanting to murder people and helping arrange such things. That's worth execution.

[Moontanman]

She probably didn't mastermind the intricate details of the murder. But she is more than capable of wanting to murder people and helping arrange such things. That's worth execution.

 

 

She used the "allure" of sex with her and her daughter and the promise of money to convince someone else to do the masterminding for her. To me the people who do this type of crime are of questionable intelligence to begin with, the idea that the people who she convinced to kill for her have been punished with a lesser punishment bothers me quite a bit but it's not unusual. our criminal justice system often allows a person who was only involved peripherally in the crime to be punished worse than the people who actually committed the crime. It happens all the time, drive the get away car from a crime that involves murder, even if you didn't know that was going to happen, and you can get the full measure of punishment and the person who actually did the killing can get much less if he gets the opportunity to plea bargain. i personally think it's wrong but i am seldom consulted in these cases....

Edited September 27, 2010 by Moontanman

[divagreen]

She probably didn't mastermind the intricate details of the murder. But she is more than capable of wanting to murder people and helping arrange such things. That's worth execution.

 

I invite you to re-examine the last two statements through the lens of the knowledge that the woman had an IQ of 72, and people of lower intelligence (the woman was two IQ points above what would be considered mentally retarded) are more easily manipulated...they have a hard time thinking things through as applied to abstract thought, which includes fully comprehending the consequences.

 

She used the "allure" of sex with her and her daughter and the promise of money to convince someone else to do the masterminding for her.

 

Sex with what most people would consider an unattractive 51 year-old woman when the two men who actually did the killings were in their late twenties, seems a tad far-fetched to me when one is considering "allure" as one of the motivating factors for the two men to have committed the crime in the first place.

 

I think that it was mostly about money. I think that the woman was either high on painkillers or drunk when she agreed to it and combined with her low IQ, it made her an easy target for two other people to step in and manipulate her into agreeing to a crime that she could not fully comprehend the ramifications of such.

 

I am enjoying discussion, though. Thank you to the posters who have replied.

[A Tripolation]

I think that it was mostly about money. I think that the woman was either high on painkillers or drunk when she agreed to it and combined with her low IQ, it made her an easy target for two other people to step in and manipulate her into agreeing to a crime that she could not fully comprehend the ramifications of such.

 

She knew people would be murdered. She knew the men would kill them. She was ok with it, and she understood that they would die. She does not deserve life.

[Moontanman]

I invite you to re-examine the last two statements through the lens of the knowledge that the woman had an IQ of 72, and people of lower intelligence (the woman was two IQ points above what would be considered mentally retarded) are more easily manipulated...they have a hard time thinking things through as applied to abstract thought, which includes fully comprehending the consequences.

 

I have a problem with the IQ thing, if I was in the position of being executed if my IQ was above a certain level i am quite sure it would be impossible to get a true IQ reading on me, i think she was smart enough to fake it and IQ tests are fairly easy to fail to be sure...

 

Sex with what most people would consider an unattractive 51 year-old woman when the two men who actually did the killings were in their late twenties, seems a tad far-fetched to me when one is considering "allure" as one of the motivating factors for the two men to have committed the crime in the first place.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and good sex doesn't nesesarrily have anything to do with looks, sometimes kinky is more important than anything else and it did say sex with her and her daughter... kinky is as kinky does

 

I think that it was mostly about money. I think that the woman was either high on painkillers or drunk when she agreed to it and combined with her low IQ, it made her an easy target for two other people to step in and manipulate her into agreeing to a crime that she could not fully comprehend the ramifications of such.

 

There was no mention of being high in the report so that is just speculation, to me it seems more likely the two guys were high but that is neither here nor there really. Wanting to kill doesn't require a high IQ, she is supposed to have the IQ of a 14 year old, 14 year olds have indeed committed murder so the idea she is too retarded to kill or to understand what killing is seems to me to be a bit less than realistic.