This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
disabled man with IQ of 61 takes part of a crime = Death PenaltyMolesters, Rapists, and abusers = 20-50 YearsWhat is wrong with you, America.
I agree with you Paige. I believe they should accept some responsibility but they should not be executed.
That 'crime' was murder...I'd prefer a murder free world with Rapists, Abusive People, and Molesters, than a murderful world without Rapists, Abusive People, and Molesters.Death is permanent, and although the other mentioned crimes are awfully hideous, they don't end you.
Well said Lily
I agree with paige and lily.
Excuse me, death is not optional, rape is. Everyone, including you will die later in life. But, many men,women, and children will be abused, raped, and scarred since of these people. Scarring is worse than death, which is why suicide is usually an after effect of these things.
Josh I don't agree with you. Unfortunately we live in a messed up world but the worst part is many rapists murder the victim after they are done with them. Even without murder the world with be an awful place. Rape, being abused, and molesters affect people to a point that they kill themselves. So in the long run people would still die.
I agree with Lily and Paige the way they treated him is not very fair.
Abuse can lead to death from severe injury.
I'm saying, if they are not killed from injury nor by rapists, that world would be ideal compared to a world where people are killed.
Josh, I have to strongly disagree with that, people who are raped and horrible things like that, would sometimes rather die then be put through that torture, terrible things happen in the world that we live in.
And you say that death is permanent, so are the scars that are left behind from terrible tragedies like rape, those victims will never be the same again.
Yes, rape doesnt end you. But it scars you beyond belief, destroys part of your reproductive organs (STDs,HIV,AIDS), and gives many people no meaning in life. Yes rape cannot end you, but it can strip you of basic being, leaving you feeling dead.
Lily please be a lawor you have a way with words *slowly applaudes*
I agree with Lily. There are people who have killed many more people and are getting life sentences and not being executed. These people who decided the decision of life or death for Wilson were just afraid of his mental handicap and thought that the only way to deal with Wilson is to get rid of him.
There are cures for STDs, including AIDS (although it is not public and cost millions [see Magic Johnson for reference])
What percentage of the human population can AFFORD this. Yes it exists, so I'm just going to drop 5 million to cure my STD, plus 200,000+ for therapy for 10 years.
You finally see my point^
Like the 9th grader who murdered Ms. Ritzer. He gets life in prison, while he has the mind of a teenager. Why should people execute others who have the mind of a first grader, while someone with a (well enough) developed mind simply gets life in prison?
The retarded man who probably had a loose grasp of what was going on during the crime gets a death penalty while a student, with no motive gets life.
I think that anyone who commits murder deserves execution.
I think you made a really good point, but these are different states here. They have different laws. Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty which means he couldn't be executed, but in Texas they do.
Having lived in the midwest, (Chicago) I have noticed that they are less harsh to dealth penalties here than any where else in the country. The south and southwest are the worst offenders of the death penalty, literally it's "Threats should be eliminated."
I totally agree, it doesn't make sense that two people who comitted the same crime get different punishments. What's even worse is the fact that Wilson was mentally disabled and received an extreme punishment of execution while the 9th grader simply received life in prison. I understand there is a fairly large age difference, but if you consider the fact that Wilson is disabled that should make up for the age difference. He should of received either mental help or life in prison.
Directed towards Josh, I don't think they should get executed because that lets them off easy. They deserve a life in prison suffering.
I agree with Paige. People who murder deserve to suffer, not just die.
Remember the Boston Marathon Bombings? People cried for death to Dzhokar. We didn't have the death penalty though.... The death penalty is the most extreme, yet fair form of punishment,@Lily; More people in Chicago are murdered in 1 year than the total people who died in Iraq. Chicago needs the death penalty to stop the war in the streets.
go paige i agree yes yes murder is bad but prison teaches them a lesson while execution just is terrifying and often sad, because say a person is wrongly imprisoned, they could get out eventually, but execution is final
I agree Emma, What happened to the other guy involved? Why did Wilson, with the mind of a first grader, get executed while the other guy didn't?
i agree with paige again i think that if they do something that terrible they deserve consequences and not just get off easy and get killed.
That's a good point, and many of these decisions/laws are made by a handful of people
I agree with James. Punishments for these two individuals are not fair, in any way, shape or form. It is unconstitutional to have this, and the Supreme Court is able to point this out and outlaw it.
The reason we didn't execute the boston bombers is because in massachusetts there isn't a death penalty, death penalty is only the last resort it should not be the solution to everything. Josh, yes sometimes it is fair but in this particular instances with the disabled man it is not
Those people who kill in Chicago, need to suffer in jail. Killing them is letting them off way to easy. They have to understand the severity of what they have done.
No, they need to be killed so that they can't use prison connections with gangs to arrange murders on witnesses. The world we live in these days is messed up
I agree with James. Punishment in our country isn't always given fairly or consistently. Olivia is right too. The Supreme Court should step in.
I think Wilson or anyone like him should not be executed. They really don't have that much control. They should have some responsibility for what they did but it should not be execution. These people in the article have a mind of like a 7 year old. If a 7 year old did something like what these people did, would you execute them or would you give tem responsibility for what they did a different way.
Everyone is responsible for what they do, it's just because someone has a the mind of a younger person and are older they should be executed, no because as you said you would not execute a 7 year old for the same crime that a 35 year old with the mind of a 7 year old did would you?
No I wouldn't. A 7 year old isn't strong enough to be a threat. A 35 year old is.
Coin i think you argued both sides here and it is not clear what side you are on
No I would not execute a 7 year old for the same crime that a 35 year old with the mind of a 7 year old did. I know that everyone is responsible for what they do but depending on how bad they are mentally impaired, they might not be able to control what they are doing or what they did. They might not understand what they are doing.
Josh i meant to say that you should not execute someone for being older with a younger mind because you wouldn't execute a younger person for the same crime sorry.
Colin* but i also agree that you wouldn't kill a 7 year old but the person is still a 35 year old man.
Even though he is a 35 year old man, he might not understand what he is doing Andrew. Age shouldn't matter. If you wouldn't execute a 7 year old you shouldn't execute a 35 year old man with the same mind.
I agree that you should never execute a 7 year old or in this case a 35 year old with the mind of a 7 year old.
Maybe a seven year old murderer needs to be executed, because when they leave prison they will grow up a hardened criminal.
If he doesn't have the mind, he doesn't have complete control over what he is doing.
I agree with you that you should not kill anyone that is 7 years old but like what Connor said since he was a 35 year old man who has the mind of a 7 year old there should be a little bit more serious consequences but not as bad as being executed.
@Timothy Green; If he lacks control, it is humane to stop him
Everyone is responsible for what they do, like Colin said, but if they are persuaded into doing something it is not entirely their fault.
I don't believe in the death penalty at all, and I'm especially horrified that a mentally handicapped person would be executed. The article says that Wilson had an IQ of only 61 and was like a first grader. He couldn't even hold a job drying cars. I don't think he should have been killed. There must have been a better way to punish him. I think that the Supreme Court should make clear rules about what it means to be "mentally retarded. "States should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions. Wilson's death was cruel and unusual punishment and should not have been allowed.
You said that you do not believe in the death penalty. Do you just not believe in it in this case, or do you believe that it shouldn't exist at all?
If someone kills someone that person should be executed because they took the life of someone and therefore they should have there own life taken.
I agree with you Noelle i believe that they should not have killed him because he does not necessarily know wrong from right because he has the thought process and mind of a child.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone murders a person, it doesn't mean that that person should be killed as well. Sure they should be punished, but death is something you can never take back.
Owen I agree, that everyone should be held to the same standard.
If the standard was that all murderers should be murdered, then yes, executing this man would be okay. However, if you murder someone, it is not common custom to be killed but rather to be held for life in prison. Thus, it is unjust to kill this man.
I completely agree with Alex and Owen, but on the other hand, people are different so not every can have the same punishment.
I agree that it was unjust to just kill Wilson. He didn't know wrong from right because of his mental disability.I agree with what Erin was said that two wrongs dont make a right.
You can't just execute someone because they have murdered. You need to know what was up.
What about the people who kill the people that kill people. It's their law and they are going on with it.
Erin, I have a hard time justifying the death penalty. You are right that two wrongs don't make a right. I think people should be punished but I can't agree that it's right to take a life, especially in this case where Wilson is disabled. Maddie is right. The death penalty results in a circle. Someone has to commit a 'crime' to punish a crime. I also have a hard time with the fact that the death penalty in our country is not given out uniformly. States have their own laws and sometimes times it even depends on how much money you have and how good your lawyer is.
I agree with Paige. I believe that Wilson should not have been executed. They just kind of jumped to a concussion that just because he was mentally disabled, their was no hope for him. It's like they just didn't know what to do so they gave up on him. Just giving up is an awful way of facing challenges in life.
I agree with Erin, Wilson should have not been executed. Giving up on someone is awful, they should have just put him in prison.
I disagree. He is a dangerous threat, and threats needs to be eliminated.
I agree, even though he was mentally disabled, he still had a future. He should not have been executed.
A future of murder, lies, and betrayal of morals.
Thats interesting, i never even considered that maybe they gave him a punishment of execution because they believed there was no hope for him, but there was because he could of been given proper help because of his mental disability.
Josh, If this man had a mind of a child you would not kill a child and this man should not have been executed.
I agree with you, Erin, Wilson should not have been executed because he was mentally handicapped.
I agree with you Erin.
Owen: I diasgree
I think he should not have been executed. Even if he was involved in the murder, he should not have been killed because he only has a mind of a first grader and there are different ways to handle the situation, like by putting him in jail. If a first grader helped kill someone people would not kill the kid they would find another way to handle it.
Nice job Shlynn! This is very well written and I completely agree with you.
Ashlynn has a good point in saying that people would not kill a first grader. Wilson has the mind of a first grader and an IQ of 61 so they should have treated him as a first grader.
Ashlynn, I agree with what you are saying, you make some good points about why he shouldn't have been executed.
So you're saying that he can go around killing people with a small consequence? Just because has a mental disability doesn't give his the right, in anyway, to kill someone. He is dangerous and needs to be handled seriously.
Ashlynn, nice thought-provoking sentences! I agree with your points, they should have at least considered the thought that the accused had an IQ of 61.
Did he really know what he was doing? I don't think he could have thought about the consequences.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Who cares if he has an IQ of 61 we know he has mental retardation, still it doesn't give him the ability to kill anyone just because he acts like a first grader. Also he is bigger than a first grader and is more dangerous because he is strong too and can't control himself.
I do not think that he should have been executed, he has the IQ of 61, which meant that he has the mind of someone much younger, this is something that is out of his control. The Supreme Court needs to find a reasonable and fair, scientifically- based assessment for people who are considered to be mentally disabled, before they make such punishments.
I agree with you they should have some type of test to figure out what to do, but at the same time since he only has the mind of a first grader he would not be able to take tests very well.
Wonderful writing Margarita! You should be a professional writer when you are older. I completely agree with what you have to say.
YEs yes very true margarita
Ashlynn, that proves my point, if you fail the test then you would be proven to be mentally retarded, so I am confused on what you are saying.
I think they should have put him in a hospital to find out how to help him and then if he could live on his own and make decisions on his own, maybe they could put him on probation or house arrest.
Yes Sarah I agree, but in order to do that they would have to prove that he was mentally retarded.
I agree with you.
But he is like they said, he has a IQ of 61 which by standard is mentally disabled.
In the article, it says he played a role in the crime. Which is confusing to me because did other people help him, and in that case what happened to them. Maybe Texas thought it wasn't right to execute one person for the murder and not the other. But at the same time in not saying that executing a person who is considered mentally ill is right. I'm just trying to look at both sides of the story here.
I agree with you I think that they should not of executed him but in this situation it might have been what they needed to do.
I believe that he should not have executed him. They should not be able to do that to him especially because he can only think like a first grader. He probably didn't even realize his crime was bad when he did it. I do think he should get some sort of a punishment, but death was too far. No first grader would ever be executed that easily, and he was not very different from any first grader.
I think that he would be a little wiser than a first grader but not much and I completely agree that the punishment was to severe.
I agree with you. He should not have been executed because he only has an IQ of 61 and didn't really know what he was happening.
I do not think he should of been executed ,but punished severely despite his disabilities. First of all he did take part in the crime and he should be punished but I dont think it is fair to say that just because he has mental disabilities doesn't make everything better and he should just get away with it. I don't like how they aproched the problem and they should of had a better resolution other than death.
Nice choices in your vocabulary. Your mother must be very proud. I think you have a good point and I agree with you!
What are some other ways they could have punished him?
Do I look like the supreme court or a judge. HOW would I know???
He shouldn't have been executed, the Texas judicial branch only decided the verdict on the charges, not the defendant. The defendant was said to have an IQ of 61, lower than the average grade school student. The man would have not have even a loose grip of the situation surrounding the crime. The judicial system should have considered the defendant in question rather than charging harshly based on the charges.
I agree, instead of making a rash conclusion the court should of consider his mental capacity. They gave a severe punishment to someone who probably wasn't even aware of what he had even done. Wilson was probably frightened then next thing you know, he is executed. There is clearly a fault in the Texas judicial branch.
I agree this if man had the mental capability of a grade school student than he should not have been executed. People today would not execute a child they would not execute a person with the mind of one.
I agree with you, Lily. If we have to have the death penalty, it definitely should not be used to punish someone with an IQ of only 61. That is cruel and unusual punishment.
I think that the law barring "mentally retarded" people from execution shouldn't be in place in the first place. Regardless of his mental abilities, this person is dangerous. Whether or not he has the mind of a first grader, he has the strength of a grown man, and when combined with mental handicap, he becomes more impulsive. This makes him a danger to the community at large and after committing a murder, he deserves the penalty which the state granted him.The Jury found him guilty, and the judge applied the penalty based on the charge. This is an unbiased method of justice. State execution has recently been controversial, but for the majority of human history it has been the main form of punishment. If Awareness was spread to the mentally handicap, as well as the community at large, that death was the punishment for murder, restraint would be shown. In the first grade, no matter my IQ, if I was told that the consequence for an act was death, I definitely would not do that act. This man and others like him can understand that, no matter there mental state.Doesn't any criminal exert some type of odd mental behavior? I don't think someone capable of murder has the best mental abilities in the world, regardless their state-defined 'mental state'.This man deserved to be executed, not because he was "mentally retarded", but because he is dangerous, he is a threat, and threats need to be eliminated.
You are correct in saying that this man is dangerous, however, others who are dangerous are still in jail today because they failed to incur the death penalty. This man should be held in for life in prison. It is unequal and unconstitutional to execute him.
I disagree with Josh, Wilson should not have been executed. He has the mind of a first grader, first graders are not threats. Wilson deserved life in prison but should not have been executed.
I don't agree with this. I think it honestly depends on the case and the person. In this case, I believe it was wrong to execute him.
I see this as putting a hurt dog down out of compassion, it is more humane.
Based on reading the article, Supreme Court must not allow executions of the mentally impaired by Laura Moye, Marvin Wilson should not have been executed. Even though he was involved in a murder Wilson was mentally disabled and therefore should be in jail. Wilson has the mind of a first grader, people would not execute a first grader so it was not right to kill Wilson. The article states that a neuropsychologist concluded that Wilson was mentally impaired however the state of Texas did not think that. Texas should have figured out how Wilson could have lived in jail for life instead of executing him.
The worst part was that the Supreme Court allows each state to make there own judgement of what is considered mentally disabled so Texas was able to get away with executing a man with the mind of a first grader and the state didn't even consider Wilson as mentally impaired.
In the article of the week I think the supreme court should have a heavier influence in the decision of executing mentally disabled people. Even though executing them is wrong because they didn't intentionally do it, putting them back out into the world without them understanding what they did will not help much either because then they can be manipulated again and again causing then have more counts against them. The US government should come up with a way to handle these people before and after they have been corrupted and help them become people that can be trusted out in public to use correct judgement. They can use schools that specialize in teaching mentally handicapped people to know right and wrong and to learn how to use those skills in situations where the person could be manipulated. After the person is taken advantage of the government should have a class that these people must take so they know what they did was wrong, and that shows them how to use correct judgement when they feel things are not right.
Supreme Court must not allow executions of the mentally impaired.Executing mentally slow people is, in this situation, wrong. Every mentally impaired person is not on equal turf. Some people will be executed and others won't, as to be determined by a council of Texas citizens. For those of us paying close attention, this is unconstitutional. Did Marvin Wilson take part in the murder of Jerry Williams? Yes. However, there are people still rotting in jail because they did not incur the death penalty. The sane and the insane people are to be held on the same standard, and that execution was not equal.
If people have the same rights, you need to have the same punishments. It's as simple as that.
Alex, The Supreme Court has said that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded because it is cruel and unusual punishment. An IQ of 61 is extremely low and should qualify as mentally handicapped.
I am among the minority here and will say that he should have been executed. Think about this. What if someone was older, and they committed a crime, but their mind was not in the right place, maybe this person has dementia or another illness. Just because they have a lower IQ score, or lowered competence of the world, doesn't mean their punishments should be different.
I agree with Alex I would execute a normal person for doing the same thing as a mentally handicapped or low IQ person.
You make some good points. what does specifies a person as mentally handicapped and what specifies are person with a mental illness
Alex, I don't agree. I think it would be awful to execute a person with dementia because they, too, have a diminished mental capacity.
Even though Wilson took part of the murder he should not have been punished as severely as the death penalty. Every murderer is not executed and I think that Texas overreacted because they didn't know how to handle a mentally handicapped person.
Executing a person with a mental disorder is disgusting. People should go find help for the person, not kill them. The death penalty is not the best idea on how to handle people who are different from the "norm." Someone might say that a certain hair color or is physically handicapped person is not "normal" but we do not kill them. Just because the person that has a non visible disorder, does not mean we should execute them.
You are right Maddie. It is awful to subject a mentally handicapped person to the death penalty.
I think that execution should not be allowed, unless in extreme cases. This murder was done by a mentally handicapped man, so even though murder is illegal, think about if somebody may have convinced him to do this knowing they wouldn't get the blame. This execution was inhumane because Marvin was considered "mentally retarded" and there is many ways a handicapped person can be put in prison and delt with that don't nessicarily come to killing him. Many other murderers have gone to prison instead of being executed, so why would this man be executed? Supreme Court is right in letting states say what a metilly "retarded" person is by their own standards, but the Supreme Court should always be brought in when execution is at hand.
how do you tell if its an extreme case or not some murders may be more extreme then others
Your point is very valid Danny. Nice job, I agree strongly.
What, in your mind, would constitute an "extreme" murder? The brutality, or who was murdered?
I completely agree that this man should have never been executed but maybe put in jail or some other consequence.
I meant people who have murdered multiple people