The death penalty is one of the most contentious ways of punishing offenders is associated with ethical and human rights implications. The death penalty is seen as the most effective way of deterring crime and retribution for one's crimes since it continues to receive a fair attention. The reason why it receives such attention is the fact that some of its victims may be mentally disabled, something that may have crowded their judgments. Human rights agencies, most notably Amnesty International, has continued to advocate against the death penalty for individuals with mental retardation. Despite the efforts, the death penalty continues to be a viable option considering that it is possible to lie about one's mental health status. Persons with borderline mental retardation averaging an IQ of 70-85 and who have below-average cognitive ability escalate these debates. These individuals, while considered to have lowered cognitive abilities, cannot be said to have intellectual disability, which falls below an IQ of 70 (Santrock, 2020). However, it is essential to note that this class of individuals is presented with comorbid psychopathies such as Autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse (Santrock, 2020). For this reason, it is important to establish whether these individuals should receive the death penalty or not.
The death penalty in itself is unconstitutional, considering that it is focused on taking away the life of criminals without giving them a chance to make amends. The main purpose of the penalty is to help an individual to understand the extent of the crime in terms of its effects. However, for these goals to be achieved, the criminal must be in their right senses to understand these implications. Individuals with mental retardation do not belong to this category as they cannot be said to understand the exact nature of their actions. It is for this reason that in 2002 the Supreme Court made decision that executing persons with mental retardation is unconstitutional (Sethuraju, Sole, & Oliver, 2016). These individuals cannot be held responsible for their actions as it could have been a psychological response to some stress or distress. The situation would get worse with individuals with borderline mental retardation who are thought to be less retarded and who could still face the death penalty. At this point, one would feel that even this category of people deserves amnesty as their IQ falls within mental retardation. These individuals struggle with a myriad of psychological issues that could interfere with their normal cognition when faced with stress conditions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Mental retardation is indicative of one's inability to make the right decision that seems obvious as it interferes with the thought process. Individuals with mental retardation no matter their category ought to be subjected to rehabilitative rather than punitive measures, especially if they commit the crime. According to Santrock (2020), mental retardation assessment seems to the point that some of the mentally disabled people can be aware of committing the crime. However, as long as one is said to be mentally retarded, their IQ does not matter as it all points to the fact that one is not in control of their actions. Proponents of the death penalty for mentally disabled persons argue that it is possible for individuals with an IQ averaging 71 to be well aware of their culpability in a crime. More so they advance the theory that such individuals could as well fake mental retardation to escape the death penalty at the peril of justice. In this case, then, it is important to have a sound system to ensure that criminals do not hide behind mental retardation to get away with the crime. Nouwens et al. (2017) assert that all criminals should be subjected to thorough mental screening to ensure that mentally disabled individuals do not get the penalty, as it will be futile. At the bottom line, mental retardation should be considered as a serious illness, and the individuals are given the requisite rehabilitative attention to enhance and ease their lives.
References
Nouwens, P. J., Lucas, R., Smulders, N. B., Embregts, P. J., & Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2017). Identifying classes of persons with a mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning: a latent class analysis . BMC Psychiatry 17(1), 257.
Santrock, J. W. (2020). A Topical Approach Life Span Development (10 th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Sethuraju, R., Sole, J., & Oliver, B. E. (2016). understanding death penalty support and opposition among criminal justice and law enforcement students. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1-15.
