Lawyers for TX Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ

[chanel]

HUNTSVILLE, Texas — Prison officials were moving forward with plans to execute a 44-year-old man Thursday evening for raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl, despite pleas from his attorneys he is too mentally impaired to qualify for capital punishment.

Bobby Wayne Woods was transferred 45 miles from his death row cell at a prison in Polunsky to a holding cell in Huntsville, a short walk from the death chamber where he was scheduled to die by injection at 6 p.m. CST.

Attorneys for Woods, 44, were waiting to hear from the U.S. Supreme Court, which they asked to halt the execution. They argued Woods was mentally impaired and ineligible for execution under court guidelines, and that previous appeals to spare Woods' life were unsuccessful because of shoddy work by his lawyers at the time.

Tests administered to Woods have put his IQ anywhere from the 60s to the 80s. An IQ of 70 is considered the threshold for mental impairment.

Woods was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die for the April 1997 murder of Sarah Patterson, his ex-girlfriend's daughter. She and her 9-year-old brother were snatched from their home in Granbury, near Fort Worth. Sarah's throat was slit with a knife. Her brother was beaten and left for dead but survived to testify against Woods.

Lawyers for Texas Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

 

[Charles Stucker]

Tough call. Texas hires specialists based on their ability to return data favorable to the prosecution. The probably got the IQ as around 80-85. The defense found specialists (psychologists or psychiatrists) to test and used the lowest, presumably in the 60-65 range, to claim the convicted killer is eligible for mental incompetence defense. Without the actual documents we can only speculate about which side is most guilty of fabricating (and misrepresenting) evidence in this instance.

 

[chanel]

Legal argument aside - he held a job, had a girlfriend, drove a car, and kidnapped these kids.It should not matter what the test shows The punishment should fit the crime.

 

[strollingbones]

i always think of...."of mice and men"

 

[AllieBaba]

Stupidity is not a defense.

 

[chanel]

I agree. And bones - In Mice and Men, the murder was almost an accident. That should be the standard. This guys crime was premeditated and heinous. He knew exactly what he was doing even if he sux at math.

 

[xsited1]

Lawyers for TX Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ

The only problem I see is that he's still alive 12 years after the murder. I've got plenty of knives to slit his throat if Texas is out. Just give me a call.

 

[geauxtohell]

HUNTSVILLE, Texas — Prison officials were moving forward with plans to execute a 44-year-old man Thursday evening for raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl, despite pleas from his attorneys he is too mentally impaired to qualify for capital punishment.

Bobby Wayne Woods was transferred 45 miles from his death row cell at a prison in Polunsky to a holding cell in Huntsville, a short walk from the death chamber where he was scheduled to die by injection at 6 p.m. CST.

Attorneys for Woods, 44, were waiting to hear from the U.S. Supreme Court, which they asked to halt the execution. They argued Woods was mentally impaired and ineligible for execution under court guidelines, and that previous appeals to spare Woods' life were unsuccessful because of shoddy work by his lawyers at the time.

Tests administered to Woods have put his IQ anywhere from the 60s to the 80s. An IQ of 70 is considered the threshold for mental impairment.

Woods was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die for the April 1997 murder of Sarah Patterson, his ex-girlfriend's daughter. She and her 9-year-old brother were snatched from their home in Granbury, near Fort Worth. Sarah's throat was slit with a knife. Her brother was beaten and left for dead but survived to testify against Woods.

Lawyers for Texas Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Except for the the outliers, I think IQ tests are stupid (no pun intended). However:

File:IQ curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In IQ of 60 is three standard deviations below the mean. That means that 99.7% of the population is smarter than this individual. That would certainly imply that he is beyond "dumb" and probably has some serious cognitive dysfunction. He is an outlier. On the other end of the curve is the requirement for MENSA, which requires that your IQ be above three standard deviations above the mean.

I am not a fan of the death penalty anyways, but executing the mentally retarded seems especially wrong to me.

The lawyer is not asking he be let off, he is just asking that he not be executed.

 

[geauxtohell]

Stupidity is not a defense.

Inability to comprehend your actions is.

 

[geauxtohell]

Lawyers for TX Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ

The only problem I see is that he's still alive 12 years after the murder. I've got plenty of knives to slit his throat if Texas is out. Just give me a call.

My brother in law was a criminal defense attorney.

He always contended there would be no death penalty if the jury had to carry out the execution.

You seem to refute that.

 

[Missourian]

I'm with Geaux, the death penalty is as antiquated as the 'eye for an eye' doctrine on which it's based.

The death penalty is nothing more than state sponsored revenge, and the last business we want the state involved in is the revenge business.

Better to give them life in prison without parole while making them work to pay restitution to the families of their victims for the rest of their natural lives.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Legal argument aside - he held a job, had a girlfriend, drove a car, and kidnapped these kids.It should not matter what the test shows The punishment should fit the crime.

Doesn't sound so retarded to me. Hang the bastard. I hate Pedophiles.

 

[Yurt]

Lawyers for TX Man Asks Court to Spare His Life Over Low IQ

The only problem I see is that he's still alive 12 years after the murder. I've got plenty of knives to slit his throat if Texas is out. Just give me a call.

My brother in law was a criminal defense attorney.

He always contended there would be no death penalty if the jury had to carry out the execution.

You seem to refute that.

lame contention...that is like saying no juror would find anyone guilty if they had to watch guard over him during his entire sentence

 

[geauxtohell]

The only problem I see is that he's still alive 12 years after the murder. I've got plenty of knives to slit his throat if Texas is out. Just give me a call.

My brother in law was a criminal defense attorney.

He always contended there would be no death penalty if the jury had to carry out the execution.

You seem to refute that.

lame contention...that is like saying no juror would find anyone guilty if they had to watch guard over him during his entire sentence

I guess you could take it up with him if we weren't all anonymous.

I am sure your vast knowledge of the law would overwhelm him.

As an aside, there is a difference between "guilty" and "execute him".

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm with Geaux, the death penalty is as antiquated as the 'eye for an eye' doctrine on which it's based.

The death penalty is nothing more than state sponsored revenge, and the last business we want the state involved in is the revenge business.

Better to give them life in prison without parole while making them work to pay restitution to the families of their victims for the rest of their natural lives.

Nice that we agree on something. Must be some of that Missouri pragmatism.

I don't trust the state with deciding who lives or dies; and thus, I don't think the state should be in the position to ever take a life.

 

[Yurt]

My brother in law was a criminal defense attorney.

He always contended there would be no death penalty if the jury had to carry out the execution.

You seem to refute that.

lame contention...that is like saying no juror would find anyone guilty if they had to watch guard over him during his entire sentence

I guess you could take it up with him if we weren't all anonymous.

I am sure your vast knowledge of the law would overwhelm him.

As an aside, there is a difference between "guilty" and "execute him".

his statement and my counter has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with common sense, has nothing to do with jurisprudence....rather has to do with logical thinking

if you're going to make the statement that no one would vote for the death penalty if they had to personally execute him, then you must accept the logical conclusion that no one would convict anyone if they personally had to stand guard over them their entire sentence....

 

[geauxtohell]

his statement and my counter has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with common sense, has nothing to do with jurisprudence....rather has to do with logical thinking

if you're going to make the statement that no one would vote for the death penalty if they had to personally execute him, then you must accept the logical conclusion that no one would convict anyone if they personally had to stand guard over them their entire sentence....

Not really.

Guarding a prisoner is a lifetime obligation.

Throwing a switch, or pulling a trigger, is a two second obligation.

It's a non sequitur, and it's so obvious I can't believe you'd even argue otherwise.

Moreover, the issue isn't the time commitment. It's the emotional burden that killing places on someone. It's similar to the argument that "people are more then willing to send other people to war, even if they themselves are not willing to go".

If there was no validity to my logic, than it would be standard protocol for firing squads to have one bullet and six blanks in the chambers of the guns and not tell the trigger pullers which was which.

 

[Yurt]

his statement and my counter has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with common sense, has nothing to do with jurisprudence....rather has to do with logical thinking

if you're going to make the statement that no one would vote for the death penalty if they had to personally execute him, then you must accept the logical conclusion that no one would convict anyone if they personally had to stand guard over them their entire sentence....

Not really.

Guarding a prisoner is a lifetime obligation.

Throwing a switch, or pulling a trigger, is a two second obligation.

It's a non sequitur, and it's so obvious I can't believe you'd even argue otherwise.

Moreover, the issue isn't the time commitment. It's the emotional burden that killing places on someone. It's similar to the argument that "people are more then willing to send other people to war, even if they themselves are not willing to go".

If there was no validity to my logic, than it would be standard protocol for firing squads to have one bullet and six blanks in the chambers of the guns and not tell the trigger pullers which was which.

lmao....it is not a non-sequitur....you actually proved my point....because it is a life long obligation, they of course would not sentence them to prison, same as they probably wouldn't actually kill the person....

its about committment and personal action, both are applicable, however, that is not how our justice system works....juries are not there to mete out the punishment, thats just the most stupid thing i've heard, they are supposed to be impartial, if we have them doling out the punishment you just lost your impartiality.....

 

[ABikerSailor]

Stupidity is not a defense.

Inability to comprehend your actions is.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as too stupid to die, just like there is no such thing as too big to fail.

Both are myths.

As far as the proof on no such thing as too stupid to die? Ever heard of the Darwin Awards?

 

[SFC Ollie]

his statement and my counter has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with common sense, has nothing to do with jurisprudence....rather has to do with logical thinking

if you're going to make the statement that no one would vote for the death penalty if they had to personally execute him, then you must accept the logical conclusion that no one would convict anyone if they personally had to stand guard over them their entire sentence....

Not really.

Guarding a prisoner is a lifetime obligation.

Throwing a switch, or pulling a trigger, is a two second obligation.

It's a non sequitur, and it's so obvious I can't believe you'd even argue otherwise.

Moreover, the issue isn't the time commitment. It's the emotional burden that killing places on someone. It's similar to the argument that "people are more then willing to send other people to war, even if they themselves are not willing to go".

If there was no validity to my logic, than it would be standard protocol for firing squads to have one bullet and six blanks in the chambers of the guns and not tell the trigger pullers which was which.

I would have no problem with performing the execution of a Pedophile and murderer. The world is simply better off without them in it.