But, retardation is a medical diagnosis that can prevent you from getting a marriage license- at least in Michigan.  Having an IQ test performed AFTER conviction (and the person knowing why they were being tested) could be suspect. 

Also, if there were that many mentally handicapped adults (ie: verifiable retardation) then there WOULD be a law that you had to be proven mentally able to be married and care for children.

Really?  I haven't read anything where that was proven in court.

I do not understand why such a fuss is made. I did not say that ececuting a woman was in a sense bad or barbaric. I have stated that the USS Court will take a call on the issue of the method of excecution and I have not ventured into that rather troublesome terrain. I have said and I maintain that the woman in question was not the one who did the actual shooting. The killer only got a life sentence whereas the woman was put to death even though she was only an accessory to the crime. There is also the large issue of mental competence. She may not have unsderstood the implications of her actions inview of her limited IQ.

Maybe this will help:

USA SHOCKS THE WORLD BY EXECUTING A WOMAN

Any sob stories for Steven Hayes? Apparently he has mental issues too. I'd throw the switch, valve, or lever myself if I could for what he did to that family.

ted kaczynski was a genius.  If you look at what he did for the field of math (which I have) he did some amazing things. 

If people agrue that someone's IQ is too low and they aren't competent then what about the geniuses that commit murder? Shouldn't they be exonorated too?  I mean think about their IQ is so high that it should be benefitical to keep them.

I'm not being completely serious with that comment.  First, I don't care if the world is shocked by what we do.  The world doesn't dictate what we do.  Second, our justice systems needs some major rehauling but I don't think that will ever happen.

For those who are against execution.  So are you for locking up people for life?  Prison was not originally intended to be that type of punishment.  What I mean by that comment is that prison was not intended to be used to hold a large number of people for life.  Obviously, in centuries past there were people that were imprisoned yet the conditions were far worse on the inside than on the outside of the walls. They also had less people locked up.

I lived in Colorado.  Colorado has the Supermax prison that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in U.S.  I have friends that have worked there.  They tell me horror stories of countless instances of stuff happening.  When they deliver meals, for example, the guards hide behind a shield that's on a pulley system (its not the riot shield for it is longer/thicker probably 5 ft if not longer).  All the guards are doing are just inserting food into a tiny slot. They don't serve utensils of any type so the food is eaten by hands. 

Now what will happen is that inmates will make weapons (knives and darts) out of paper mache.  They will usually put dookie or other body discharges on the tip of the item.  If it hits or nixs you most of the inmates have some type of STD or other transmitable disease that you would rather not get.  The other thing is when you try to put the food in the slot inmates will try to puncture your hand or grab your hand (try to damage your hand in a number of other ways).  Yes, they do have protective gloves but I'm sure you can imagine how hard it is to handle/do anything with protective gloves on.  Obviously, some form of reward system should be set up (I believe they do have a reward system) but let's be honest here you are in solitary confinement for 23 hours and only get 1 hour of a controlled activity. Do you really think a reward system will really work in that situation?

I'm all for forced labor and chain gangs.  Then you have people screaming that's inhumane and what about the people who can't physically work.  Usually other non-sense will come forth besides those two points.  We can't forget the unions (even though less than 15% at most of people in the U.S are in a union) never like that because most of the jobs cut into union jobs.

Most of those people in Supermax prison refuse to be part of a society.  I am against doing what Mexico, Cuba, and China regularly do and send your unwanted to another country.

Even with chain gains and forced labor there are some people who would absolutely refuse to be part of a society and they will do what they want.  What should we do with people like that?

Besides electing them to congress or have them in congress?

Obviously, this article was about a woman who has a low IQ that was executed.  What does people or the world suggest that we do with people who refuse to follow laws of a society?  Who say when 'I get out I'm going to just kill another person, rape someone else again, or destory another family' what do you do with someone with that attitude? 

Perfect Point. Bahu, Taltamir just summed up why you got so much heat for this article.  Perhaps if you had rephrased your objection, more would have agreed with you - or at least not disagreed so vehemently.

I do not want another fight on my hands. But really that Iranian woman's case was no different. She too stands accuesed and proven so of havinmg arranged the murder of her husband with the help of her married lover. And when the Iranians say that she has to be excecuted for the crime the whole world stands up and bays--killing a woman How very barbaric of the Iranians and so on. Why does the same arguments put forward so eloquently by so may do not apply to Iran.

implied nothing, you outright stated it was the issue.

So you are NOT a liberal who opposes the death penalty according to your own words... yet the USA is now in the same league as Iran for imposing the death penalty "EVEN ON WOMEN"

Of course, the above are just the most flat out over examples, in every single sentence you refer to her as "the woman" and "killed" instead of executed. But all I need to do is point out that you flat out say you do not oppose the death penalty, you DO oppose its application to women. Hence women are not "real people", they are pets to be kept by men for child bearing and sex in your opinion... property that should not be executed if it misbehaves.

Excellent points, but I am pretty sure this isn't the execution he is talking about... you are referring to the woman (who was probably raped, but in sharia law rape isn't a crime) and was executed via stoning for "adultery"...

I think he was talking about a different woman who was executed in Iran for supposedly murdering her husband... but the only evidence they had was that they tortured her until she signed a confession...

He is also making the mistake of lumping people together... I don't know who is "the world" that was "baying at how iran dares execute a woman"... but he seems to think that if he shows how other people are as misogynistic as him he will be off the hook for his misogynistic views. News flash, there ARE other misogynistic people out there who think a woman should not be held responsible for crimes that men are because women are not real people. But WE who protest it here (aka, me, Dr Guy, and a few others) aren't those people...

you show me a quote of ME doing it and you will prove that I am a misogynist and a hypocrite, you show me others that do it, and all I have to say is "so what" and "how does it get you off the hook"?

He pretty busy chasing Christie down for 2000 bucks and the moment, can't expect him to do something trivial like murder, terrorism, or voter intimidation.

In all these extensive interventions, I have been attacked on assumptions that are just not true. I have stated very clearly in my post itself that she is guilty but that she had limited intellectual and mental ability and that mitigating circumstance should hve been considered. Second, the mysogny angle is rather strange. If so I should have welcomed the death peanlty and make it appear that she was more guilty than Rodney who actually killed the two. I have not done so. Third, USA kicked up the big row over the Iranian woman who also stnds accused of having her husband murdered by her married lover. Third, to the best of my knowledge the Iranians have not carried out the execution thereby demonstrating a degree of concern for public/world opinion. As for the claim that the Iranian woman was tortured, even Amnesty International has not made that outrageous claim.

we now have two seperate issues...

First, the issue of WHICH Iranian woman are you specifically referring to? please NAME HER so we can discuss this more clearly.

Second, you claim that gender is no issue but in this post https://forums.joeuser.com/399009/page/3/#2821463

I show otherwise, you clearly stated that you are NOT against the death penalty itself, you are against applying it to women. Give us one good reason why women should NOT be treated equally by the law, or rescind your original statements and admit they were wrong. There is nothing wrong with that, debates are to teach and to learn, not to "win". I often admit my original opinion on something was proven wrong and change it to fit new evidence, this is a GOOD thing. So please, go ahead and do the same. your options are:

1. Say that there is nothing wrong with executing either gender if they committed a crime deserving an execution.

2. Say that the death penalty is wrong, regardless of gender, and be equally appalled by it when applied to men, and stop painting this is a women's right issue.

3. Come up with a plausible explanation as to why women should be treated as sub human (I don't think its possible to make such an argument plausible, but you can try)

4. Come up with a plausible explanation as how your words were taken out of context and didn't mean what you said. (I seriously doubt that since you were pretty clear and straightforward)

3 and 4 are far out there, try to stick to 1 or 2.