“The California Supreme Court says IQ is not a sufficient basis to decide who may be executed
. Prosecutors suggested anyone with an IQ of 70 or higher was not retarded and therefore could be executed. But the court decided 1) ‘IQ tests are insufficiently precise to utilize a fixed cutoff’ and 2) death-row inmates can get their sentences changed to life in prison if a judge rules that they’ve probably had ‘significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning’ and other mental disabilities since they were minors. IQ can be a factor, but not the sole factor. Victim advocate’s spin: The ruling will create ‘a lot of work’ for prosecutors fighting off appeals. Anti-death penalty spin: A little work never killed anyone. Implication: Our understanding of intelligence is becoming more complex.” (Slate )
This more sophisticated approach would avoid Kafkaesque situations like the recent case in which a mentally retarded convicted murderer was said to have had his intellectual development so stimulated by working with his defense attorneys on the appeals of his death sentence that he was no longer below the IQ threshold for execution.
Eric Alterman reviews the gyrations the press must go through to meet the obligation they seem to feel to do dignified reporting about a passel of snakeoil salesmen:
“The United States government is currently run by a group of people for whom verifiable truth holds no particular privilege over ideologically inspired nonsense. For members of the mainstream media, trying to maintain a sense of self-importance and solemnity and to keep the wing nuts from crowing for more scalps, this requires a series of stratagems to keep up the scripted charade, no matter how foolish it makes them look or feel while doing so.” (The Nation )