• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

TX Using Scientific "Lennie" Test To Determine If People Are Retarded Enough To Live

Shooshmoo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
12,463
Reaction score
2,168
Location
Right here
TX Using Scientific "Lennie" Test To Determine If People Are Retarded Enough To Live

More solid work, Texas. Both hilarious and depressing:

"In 2002, the Supreme Court prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded, declaring it cruel and unusual punishment forbidden under the Constitution's 8th Amendment. Those with diminished mental capacity, the court ruled, are less culpable for their crimes than those with normal intellects. The reasoning was nearly identical to the legal argument the court embraced in forbidding the execution of juvenile offenders.

The court left it up to the states to determine who qualified as mentally retarded. In response, the Texas Court for Criminal Appeals, the top state court, cited in a ruling the child-like character "Lennie," from John Steinbeck's classic novel "Of Mice and Men," as its standard of what type of offender should be exempt from execution.

"Most Texas citizens would agree that Steinbeck's Lennie should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt from execution," the court found.

Those with more advanced intellects should face execution, regardless of psychological tests indicating mental deficits, the ruling said. The Texas standard has been used repeatedly to justify the execution of those who by clinical benchmarks would typically be judged to suffer from mild mental retardation.

Those standards applied to Wilson, who exhibited serious mental deficits beginning in childhood, family members said.

According to his sister, Wilson sucked his thumb into his 20s. His cousin, Beverly Walters, said Wilson was constantly teased about his intelligence as a boy."

"The other kids in school would always call Marvin dummy," Walters said in 2003.

On Tuesday, the use of Steinbeck's character to support the execution of those with less profound mental deficits was criticized harshly by the author's son.

"Prior to reading about Mr. Wilson's case, I had no idea that the great state of Texas would use a fictional character that my father created to make a point about human loyalty and dedication …. as a benchmark to identify whether defendants with intellectual disability should live or die," Thomas Steinbeck said in a statement.

"I am certain that if my father, John Steinbeck, were here, he would be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this way," Steinbeck said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/marvin-wilson-execution-texas_n_1753968.html
 
Last edited:
"I am certain that if my father, John Steinbeck, were here, he would be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this way," Steinbeck said.

This was the thought I had by the end of the sentence referring to the book. Mississippi can now make fun of Texas.
 
Nothing to see here. He was a crafty criminal and had some IQ tests where he scored over 70.

But not intelligent enough to realize that he should have stuck a dead mouse in his pocket.
 
The dude scored a 61 on an IQ test. that is really low, there is no way he should have been executed.
 
Not sure if there is a thread on here about this, but this got me thinking about the Gabby Giffords shooting. Loughner clearly had a ton of problems and I just find it really unfortunate that he had to murder a bunch of people before he got the services he needed. Perhaps if we had invested this much time and effort and gotten him the help he needed a while ago a ton of people wouldn't be dead.
 
The dude scored a 61 on an IQ test. that is really low, there is no way he should have been executed.

I don't know the facts of the case, but people condemned to die regularly throw IQ tests to avoid execution. Even if that's not what happened here, he had other tests in the 70s. He had federal habeas review that was denied. This kind of stuff happens all the time.
 
Not sure if there is a thread on here about this, but this got me thinking about the Gabby Giffords shooting. Loughner clearly had a ton of problems and I just find it really unfortunate that he had to murder a bunch of people before he got the services he needed. Perhaps if we had invested this much time and effort and gotten him the help he needed a while ago a ton of people wouldn't be dead.

The state of mental health treatment in this country is pretty deplorable. Would solve a LOT of problems if it was improved.
 
So what's the difference between a dude scoring 72 and 62 on an IQ test if the arbitrary cutoff is 70? Either way he's dumb as shit, but the question isn't whether he's dumb as shit, whether he sucked his thumb into his 20s, or whether he was called "retard" and "dummy" by kids in elementary school. The issue is whether or not he had any awareness and understanding of his crimes. The article, in typical HuffPo fashion, seems to ignore that and even throws in an irrelevant opinion of Steinbeck's kid into the mix as if his father's shame is some kind of legal precedent.

Did the kid have any understanding that what he did was wrong? He certainly seemed to understand that he was about to be executed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Being told for decades you are going to be killed, it's hard not to understand it's happening. That has nothing to do with his ability to understand the consequences of his actions.
 
Wait, so the courts can ignore IQ tests if a criminal doesn't seem enough like a certain fictional character? Are there other determinants required, interviews with psychologists perhaps?
 
So what's the difference between a dude scoring 72 and 62 on an IQ test if the arbitrary cutoff is 70? Either way he's dumb as shit, but the question isn't whether he's dumb as shit, whether he sucked his thumb into his 20s, or whether he was called "retard" and "dummy" by kids in elementary school. The issue is whether or not he had any awareness and understanding of his crimes. The article, in typical HuffPo fashion, seems to ignore that and even throws in an irrelevant opinion of Steinbeck's kid into the mix as if his father's shame is some kind of legal precedent.

Did the kid have any understanding that what he did was wrong? He certainly seemed to understand that he was about to be executed.

I really don't think people with an IQ in the 70s really understand the consequences of his actions. He might understand them now, but people with IQs that low really don't understand social consequences. Some people may think this isn't a great analogy but, I worked with a student who was a nose picker and when he would pick his nose the other kids would say "eewwww" or "gross", now because of the other kids reactions he stopped doing it, but it didn't mean he understood why nose picking is gross.
 
The state of mental health treatment in this country is pretty deplorable. Would solve a LOT of problems if it was improved.

This.

Though I will also say the facts of a case can often speak more to someone's intelligence than an IQ test. Whether you have the capacity to plan and premeditate a crime and/or attempt to cover it up is more useful in this context than whether you can look at a square, a triangle and a circle and say which doesn't belong with the others.
 
The dude scored a 61 on an IQ test. that is really low, there is no way he should have been executed.

He apparently had multiple tests run, and on several of them he scored higher. I don't know why everyone says "He had an IQ of 61." The appropriate statement is "one of several tests showed he had an IQ of 61."

Apparently Texas was convinced he was manipulating, or attempting to manipulate, his scores of some of the tests too.

I totally agree mentally retarded people should not be executed. But this dude was operating criminal schemes with decoys, front men, etc. He even schemed to execute a snitch at one point. I find it unlikely that a mental retard was running such criminal schemes.
 
Also the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is generally always this dumb. It's an elected court, made up primarily of former prosecutors, and they always run on the same platform:

"You're tough on crime? Well I'm TOUGHER on crime. I'm tough as shit."
 
The state of mental health treatment in this country is pretty deplorable. Would solve a LOT of problems if it was improved.

For reals. Many states are slashing services right now in the face of budget cuts, too. There just aren't enough advocates out there for the mentally ill.
 
Back
Top