This past Monday the Supreme Court agreed to hear a Florida

death penalty case that deals with how states determine whether a death row

inmate is mentally disabled. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional

for states to execute someone who is mentally disabled, as it violated the Eight

Amendment’s restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment. However, it allowed

the states some flexibility on how they determine whether someone was mentally disabled.

Nine states (including Florida and Idaho) use an IQ score of 70 as a cutoff for

a mental disability. They deem anyone who scores above a 70 as competent. At

the heart of this case is whether using a 70 IQ score cutoff standard violates

the 2002 decision, as it is too inflexible and does not allow the consideration

of other factors, such as social and practical skills, and years of mental

incompetence.

The case before the Supreme Court involves Freddie Lee Hall,

a man who was convicted and sentenced to death for sexually assaulting and

murdering a woman who was 7 months pregnant. In 1999, the Florida court

ruled that he was mentally disabled but he would still have to face the death

penalty. After the 2002 Supreme Court ruling, he challenged his death penalty

case, arguing he should not be executed because the state deemed he was

mentally disabled. However, Florida subsequently changed how it determined

whether someone was mentally disabled after the 2002 decision, setting the 70

IQ standard.

The state of Florida is now claiming Hall is not mentally disabled

but he continues to claim that he is. Hall has taken several IQ tests, all of which

have put his IQ slightly over 70. His lawyers are arguing that existing IQ tests

cannot measure IQ in a reliable way, as scores can change from test to test. His

scores include 71, 73, and 80. His lawyers argue that Hall is clearly mentally disabled

based on his low IQ and other measures, such as brain damage and psychological

problems. They argue that the court should take all of these factors into

consideration when determining whether someone is competent.

This case is interesting from a research perspective as it

deals with how social scientists measure abstract concepts that they cannot

precisely define or measure. Psychologists have a good idea of what being

mentally disabled means, but they have not identified factors that are precise

enough to have a specific operational definition. Nevertheless, IQ tests are

still a good partial measure of mental competency, even if they are imperfect.

Although it is likely that after this case is decided, the

Supreme Court will continue to allow states to use IQ tests as measures of

competency, the Supreme Court may change how states can use IQ scores as

a measurement tool. Since IQ scores vary from test to test, perhaps the Supreme

Court will require that states administer multiple tests. In addition, perhaps

the court will rule that states should use a 95% confidence interval to measure IQ

instead of a point estimate. So, for example, if someone’s IQ score is 74 +/- 5

points, it is possible that his true IQ is below 70, making them mentally

disabled. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the 2002 ruling does not require

states to take into an IQ score range, just the point estimate, so the Supreme

Court has the opportunity to be more specific and require a confidence interval (as the 2002 ruling suggested that "mild mental retardation is typically used to describe people with an IQ level of 50—55 to approximately 70").

Share this: Facebook

Reddit

Twitter

Email



Like this: Like Loading...