Dan Fishback: A step toward a more civilized society

Of the inmates on Pennsylvania's death row, between 10 and 25 percent are developmentally disabled. Yes, our state executes mentally retarded people.

Yeah I know, my faith in humanity dropped a notch, too. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Senate is about to consider Senate Bill No. 26, which would end such executions, making humankind just a little more worthy of our sympathy and concern.

Killing people with mental retardation seems self-evidently disgusting to me, but just in case you need to be convinced (and just in case you felt like writing a letter to your state senator about something), allow me to run through the logic for just a second.

You'd probably expect someone of my opinion to explain that mentally retarded individuals are not responsible for their actions -- that they do not understand morality, that they should be treated as children. I'm not even going to go there -- there are enough other reasons that do not necessitate words like "morality," reasons that do not bring up issues so subjective that they could feasibly mutate this discussion into something theological. Let's leave all that for another time.

The best argument against this sort of execution is purely procedural -- people with mental retardation simply do not jell with the criminal justice system.

Mentally retarded people cannot understand abstract legal concepts and therefore, cannot assist in their own defense. They are characteristically prone to suggestion and coercion -- usually eager to please authority figures. Therefore, they are more likely to give up legal protections, like the right to remain silent.They are more likely to make false confessions. They are more likely to be manipulated by the police, by prosecutors, by anyone in a position of authority.

Furthermore, their presence in a courtroom is likely to alienate a jury. They are likely to breach standard courtroom etiquette. They are likely to smile at inappropriate times, fall asleep, stare or exhibit surface signs of callousness and ambivalence.

That in mind, consider how likely it is that a mentally retarded defendant will be convicted falsely of anything. We should be questioning their treatment in general -- in cases of theft, assault and other crimes -- not just when someone is out to kill them.

And yet the counterargument is not completely obscene. Many would question the very definition of "mentally retarded." The American Association on Mental Retardation defines it as "substantial limitations in present functioning.... Characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in... applicable adaptive skill areas," like communication and work.

"Limitations?" I've looked through a stack of Wharton essays before -- I know limitations. "Subaverage?" -- that is a word people could fight over for days.

Many others define retardation in terms of an "objective" IQ test, labeling as retarded those with scores below 70. The problem is that scores can vary on a day-to-day basis. You can have a 72 one day and a 68 the next. Aside from that, an IQ test arguably measures nothing but how well you take IQ tests.

This being the case, is it completely arbitrary to draw this line between life and death? You get this score, you live? You get that score, you die?

Well that is not a flippant point at all. A "scoring" system is imperfect. But you know what else is imperfect?

The criminal justice system in general.

So if you are going to argue against flawed systems, you inevitably end up questioning more than you bargained for. Then you are confronted with a vast structure of fallible procedures -- a structure that kills people, many of them innocent, many of them mentally retarded, many of them punished for crimes they committed as children.

"Many," you ask? Is it really that many? Well if it's one, it's too many. We can't afford to make these mistakes.

So yes, the IQ system is largely arbitrary. Yes, it's a rather odd way to sentence some people to death and others to life in prison. But in a society that does not seem particularly close to abolishing the death penalty any time soon, it's something, and that, as they say, is better than nothing.

So if we are going to crusade against "evil" in the world, let's not just focus on far-off continents. Let's take a good look at ourselves first. Let's see where we find evil, and let's see what we're willing to do about it.

So if you find yourself on vacation next week, writing postcards to your friends back home, try setting one aside for your state senator: "Hey there. The sun is great! There's not a cloud in the sky! Please don't kill people! Wish you were here!"

Dan Fishback is a junior American Identities major from Olney, Md.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.