Adaptive Behavior, Mental Retardation, and the Death Penalty

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay B. Stevens ◽  
J. Randall Price
Author(s):  
Gilbert S. Macvaugh ◽  
Karen L. Salekin ◽  
J. Gregory Olley

Author(s):  
Cliff Sloan ◽  
Lauryn Fraas

This chapter introduces the reader to key cases analyzing claims of intellectual disability, describes the current clinical definition and diagnosis, and provides an overview of recurring issues in capital litigation. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals with intellectual disability may not be executed. The Court subsequently clarified that current medical standards must be used in assessing claims of intellectual disability in capital cases. The clinical diagnosis requires assessing three factors: (a) deficits in intellectual functioning; (b) deficits in adaptive behavior; and (c) the onset of deficits during the developmental period. Courts must be informed by current medical standards regarding issues that arise, including the standard error of measurement in IQ scores, the problems of offsetting weaknesses in adaptive behavior with perceived strengths, and other clinical topics. The principle that the death penalty must not be imposed on individuals with intellectual disability signals important responsibilities for social work practitioners.


Author(s):  
Monica K. Miller ◽  
Alayna Jehle ◽  
H. Lyssette Chavez

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ceci ◽  
Matthew Scullin ◽  
Tomoe Kanaya

2003 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis Coleman ◽  
Ronald A. Shellow

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S458-S458
Author(s):  
L. French

IntroductionIn May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) in order to bring America's clinical professionals in concert with the World Health Organization's (WHO) international classifications, notably the ICD-10-CM. This effort was met with considerable resistance and changes were delayed until November 2015. Major social-cultural differences between the United States and its European and other North American partners (Canada and Mexico) poses challenges in critical forensic areas such as the clinical/legal assessment of death qualified offenders – a status unique to the USA.Objective/aimsTo articulate the clinical/legal differences between the previous DSM's (III; III-R; IV) and the DSM-5 and how the new language provides greater ambiguity in defining the mental status requirements for Mens Rea – competence to understand one's actions.MethodsPresent the major legal issues surrounding the US death penalty and brought before the US Supreme Court including: Furman v. Georgia (1972); Greg v. Georgia (1976); Jared v. Texas (1976); Proffit v. Florida (1976); Adkins v. Virginia (2002); Roper v. Simmons (2005); Miller v. Alabama (2012): … and legislative actions such as Rosa's Law (Public Law 111-256; 2010).Results/conclusionsAdvocacy groups pushed Rosa's Law to mental retardation with – intellectual and developmental disability. This change is reflected in the DSM-5 whereby mental retardation (MR) was once relegated to axis II, is now classified under intellectual disabilities (ID) given the impression that it is a transitory (correctable) and not a fix (organ disability) clinical condition.Disclosure of interestThe author has not supplied his declaration of competing interest.


2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chwen-Yng Su ◽  
Yueh-Hsien Lin ◽  
Yuh-Yih Wu ◽  
Ching-Chiang Chen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document