This blurb from today's New York Times:

"TEXAS: DEATH PENALTY UPHELD FOR INMATE The State Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the death sentence of an inmate whose case was returned to the lower court by the United States Supreme Court based on his claims of mental retardation. Lawyers argued that the inmate, Michael W. Hall, convicted of murdering a grocery clerk in 1998 in Fort Worth, had an I.Q. below 70, a widely accepted standard in determining retardation. The state court said testimony regarding Mr. Hall's mental capacity was outweighed by evidence to the contrary. Steve Barnes (NYT)"

I think the death penalty is one of the only arenas in which individuals of lower IQ are forced to prove that they really have a lower IQ (besides the Social Security Administration, which could take up another whole Blog). Its a balancing test apparently: "Well, we have this evidence on the one hand that you may not completely understand what's happening to you and why you are being executed. However, we have all this other evidence that you are a murdering bastard, so we're going to find some way to have our evidence override your constitutional right to understand your punishment and crime."

Ok, I'm done now. I'm going to go take a look at what the "evidence" outweighing evidence of Hall's mental capacity actually is before I prematurely judge the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. I'll judge them more AFTER I've read their reasoning. Forgive my premature erruption. You can go back to your regularly scheduled program.