It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intellectual Disability And The Supreme Court.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Scotus rules that Texas cannot execute Bobby James Moore due to Intellectual Disability.





www.pbs.org...





WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Texas death row inmate who claims he should not be executed because he is intellectually disabled. The justices, by a 5-3 vote, reversed a Texas appeals court ruling that said inmate Bobby James Moore was not intellectually disabled. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion that Texas’ top criminal appeals court ignored current medical standards and required use of outdated criteria when it decided Moore isn’t mentally disabled. That ruling removed a legal hurdle to Moore’s execution for the shotgun slaying of a Houston grocery store clerk in 1980.


The Supreme Court's ruling on this case.


Moore Confessed to the crime.



Moore contends that his counsel provided constitutionally deficient performance in their handling of his confession during the guilt phase of trial. Moore's confession contained the following exculpatory language: The old man in the booth leaned over to open a drawer in the booth. I started trying to push him back with the barrel of the shotgun. I was leaning over the counter of the booth and I suddenly fell backwards and the butt of the gun hit my arm and the gun went off. I didn't learn until later that the man had been shot. I seen it on T.V. The man must have been standing back up as I fell backwards and the gun went off. * * * I swear I was not trying to kill the old man and the whole thing was an accident. No one disputes that the exculpatory language quoted above has obvious relevance to the guilt phase issue of intent, as well as the punishment phase special issue of deliberateness.



murderpedia.org...


If someone is intelligent enough to plan a robbery, where a 73 year old cashier was murdered, how can they not be intelligent enough to face the punishment?

I am starting to think that Scotus suffers from Intellectual Disabilities.




posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Your answers are in your own quoted link



“Texas cannot satisfactorily explain why it applies current medical standards for diagnosing intellectual disability in other contexts, yet clings to superseded standards when an individual’s life is at stake,” Ginsburg said


further


The Supreme Court held in 2002 that people convicted of murder who are intellectually disabled cannot be executed. The court gave states some discretion to decide how to determine intellectual disability. The justices have wrestled in several more recent cases about how much discretion to allow.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




Your answers are in your own quoted link


Yeah I read those, and they are not answers. If someone can plan a crime they are intelligent enough for punishment.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone


I swear I was not trying to kill the old man and the whole thing was an accident.

Except he didn't rob the store 'by accident' or have a loaded, chambered and cocked shotgun pointed at this clerk 'by accident'. Dudes a liar and a killer... not seemingly sorry or admitting his whole part after all this time....


zzzttt



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You have to be pretty intelligent to get out of a Texas Death Penalty.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: intrptr

You have to be pretty intelligent to get out of a Texas Death Penalty.

I agree. Telling the court , "the whole thing was an accident" and making up some story about him falling and the clerk standing and accidentally discharging the firearm, killing the man.

mmh hmm...



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I wonder what kind of test is given to determine one's intelligence, and since the test will determine you ability to face the legal punishment how hard would it be to fail it.

Is it just me or does it seem like judges are judging more from a political view than a lawful one.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone


I wonder what kind of test is given to determine one's intelligence,

Imo, Shouldn't have anything to do with judging a crime, especially a serious crime like murder.

This guy planned ahead to rob the store, got a shotgun, loaded it and went there to do that. How intelligent is that?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Exactly. He even had a wig for a disguise. That shows signs of intelligence. The idiocy of this just boggles my mind. Common sense really is not very common.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

If Moore can Walk and Chew Gum at the Same Time , then he is Not Intellectually Disabled . Fry Him .



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That is the part I just can't understand. What are the courts using that say's he is Intellectually Disabled? That can open up a Pandora's box for generations to come.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Yes , not a Wise Precedent to Set there . Was Ruth Awake for that Vote ?
edit on 28-3-2017 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If you can call it awake. This is what she said to the media.




Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion that Texas’ top criminal appeals court ignored current medical standards and required use of outdated criteria when it decided Moore isn’t mentally disabled. That ruling removed a legal hurdle to Moore’s execution for the shotgun slaying of a Houston grocery store clerk in 1980.




www.pbs.org...



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If you can call it awake. This is what she said to the media.




Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion that Texas’ top criminal appeals court ignored current medical standards and required use of outdated criteria when it decided Moore isn’t mentally disabled. That ruling removed a legal hurdle to Moore’s execution for the shotgun slaying of a Houston grocery store clerk in 1980.




www.pbs.org...



Time for that Superior Cackling Old Hen to Retire . That sounds like Borderline Dementia .
edit on 28-3-2017 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It's not just about level of intellect but also emotion. A 7 year old can plan and execute a crime, but he does not have the emotional maturity to truly understand it.

I'm pro-life and therefore find the death penalty anathema. It's just shocking to me that someone would feel so strongly about murdering a mentally retarded person that they would go to the effort of making a post about it. Of all the problems we have in this society, is the ability of the state to murder a mentally retarded person really high on your priority list? If so, I think it's time for some introspection.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That is the part I just can't understand. What are the courts using that say's he is Intellectually Disabled? That can open up a Pandora's box for generations to come.

Leave it to the lawyers to find an excuse that drags everyone into court (again), to talk, talk and talk (and make money).

The broken justice system that allows that is beyond reproach.

Quick and speedy trial, whats that? Justice, whats that? Closure doesn't exist, for the victims as well as the law.

ETA: This guy murdered someone in cold blood during an armed robbery in 1980 and hey are still talking about whether to execute him, In Texas, no less?
edit on 29-3-2017 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

There is no such things as true justice in this world. there is only legal revenge.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: intrptr

There is no such things as true justice in this world. there is only legal revenge.

Yah well, might as well let all the criminals go then...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: intrptr

There is no such things as true justice in this world. there is only legal revenge.

Yah well, might as well let all the criminals go then...


No we shoudnt let them go. they are in jail because of legal revenge for their deeds. I wish we went back to wild west law and shooting of criminals who commited felonies.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: intrptr

There is no such things as true justice in this world. there is only legal revenge.

Yah well, might as well let all the criminals go then...


No we shoudnt let them go. they are in jail because of legal revenge for their deeds. I wish we went back to wild west law and shooting of criminals who committed felonies.

Vigilante justice isn't hollywood, wild wild west. Its just short of anarchy. Fair trial by jury of ones peers (quick and speedy) so the people can't become vengeful is best.

That way the process is done fair and swiftly in open court, evidence tried, verdict reached, sentence carried out and everyone has to go home and respect the verdict and let it gooo.

Judges are supposed to oversee the process and not let BS into the process.

I agree, we don't have that anymore. Endless trial, like endless war and endless debt is the rule today.
edit on 29-3-2017 by intrptr because: spelling and additional



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join