Lori
03-17-2007, 02:28 PM
I'm thinking about this in the context of the Couey sentence. He was found, depending on the test given, to have an IQ ranging from 64 to 74, and the most recent edition of the most common test put his IQ at 64.
Putting aside the issue of sentencing him to death, which I think is wrong in all cases, I'm really not sure how I feel about this case. I think it's very strange that the issue of his cognitive capacity never came up in other discussions of the case. The fact that he is, according to the diagnostic tests that would be used today, mentally retarded seems like an important piece of information. I also find the idea of a trial in a case like that very odd, because the whole idea of a jury trial is that we have a jury of our peers, but in a case like this, is it really a jury of his peers if the jury has a level of cognitive understanding that he can't achieve?
Obviously he's a danger to society, and poses a threat to the public, and should be locked up. But I do think that his actions or motivations might be qualitatively different from the actions or motivations of a person with normal cognitive capabilities who did the same thing.
I have an aunt who is mentally retarded, and when I was a kid, she used to hit and kick all her little nieces and nephews when she was mad at us. Obviously, if another adult were to do that, it would be horrible and abusive, but in her case, she wasn't being either. I obviously don't think she should have been charged with assault or child abuse because she was reacting in a way that, however inappropriate for an adult her age, was not inappropriate given her cognitive abilities. (Plus, she always had supervision nearby, and was always stopped when she was behaving that way.) That's a far cry from what Couey did, and he seems significantly less impaired than my aunt is, but I'm still troubled by the fact that his cognitive impairments were deemed legally irrelevant by the court system and the jury.
What do you think? At what point should someone's cognitive capabilities be considered, and how should they be taken into consideration?
Putting aside the issue of sentencing him to death, which I think is wrong in all cases, I'm really not sure how I feel about this case. I think it's very strange that the issue of his cognitive capacity never came up in other discussions of the case. The fact that he is, according to the diagnostic tests that would be used today, mentally retarded seems like an important piece of information. I also find the idea of a trial in a case like that very odd, because the whole idea of a jury trial is that we have a jury of our peers, but in a case like this, is it really a jury of his peers if the jury has a level of cognitive understanding that he can't achieve?
Obviously he's a danger to society, and poses a threat to the public, and should be locked up. But I do think that his actions or motivations might be qualitatively different from the actions or motivations of a person with normal cognitive capabilities who did the same thing.
I have an aunt who is mentally retarded, and when I was a kid, she used to hit and kick all her little nieces and nephews when she was mad at us. Obviously, if another adult were to do that, it would be horrible and abusive, but in her case, she wasn't being either. I obviously don't think she should have been charged with assault or child abuse because she was reacting in a way that, however inappropriate for an adult her age, was not inappropriate given her cognitive abilities. (Plus, she always had supervision nearby, and was always stopped when she was behaving that way.) That's a far cry from what Couey did, and he seems significantly less impaired than my aunt is, but I'm still troubled by the fact that his cognitive impairments were deemed legally irrelevant by the court system and the jury.
What do you think? At what point should someone's cognitive capabilities be considered, and how should they be taken into consideration?