A bad use for IQ tests
Almost a year ago, I had this to say about the Supreme Court decision stating that it was "crual and unusual punishment" to execute a mentally-retarded criminal. Best of intentions, I suppose, but I foresaw several problems that could result from this decision:
I also find it interesting that I didn't see mentioned anywhere just how many mentally retarded inmates get put to death each year - is it 10%? Less than 1%? Are the inmates in the 20 states that currently do not have laws against executing the mentally retarded going to clamor for retests, or will their current IQ scores stand? The potential for abuse is astounding here, and I wouldn't want to be the clinician in charge of testing individuals, knowing that a difference of a few points is indeed a matter of life and death. ...setting a cutpoint for IQ scores and excusing everyone below it...[is]..extremely careless, in fact, to the point of being meaningless. IQ tests were not designed to keep people from being put to death, and if they are heavily relied on for selecting that outcome, we'll gradually move towards the time when only someone with a college degree, or some other obvious past testament to intelligence, will face the death penalty.
Looks like I was right about the uproar and confusion over this "uncharted territory":
At least 18 [of Ohio's] death-row inmates have filed appeals in courts across the state in hopes of halting their executions on the grounds they are mentally retarded. Yesterday marked the six-month deadline set by the Ohio Supreme Court for current death row inmates to make such claims in the wake of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional...
"It’s very frustrating in that we are faced with a situation in which science has no experience," said Ohio Public Defender David Bodiker, who predicted that as many as 37 claims could be filed. "Mental retardation has always been done in the present tense," he said. "What we’re asking under [the court rulings] is whether someone was mentally retarded 20 years ago."
James W. Canepa, chief deputy for criminal justice for Attorney General Jim Petro, said he does not accept the suggestion that tests might have to retroactively diagnose retardation. "There isn’t a cure for mental retardation," said Mr. Canepa. "Either they had it and have it, or they don’t. That argument is disingenuous. All of us ... have standardized testing from grade school through college. If you commit a crime, you’re tested in the institution"...
"This is uncharted territory," said Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates. "Are we looking at a bright-line number or conduct? Could someone have an IQ of 69, but still be able to steal a handgun, purchase ammunition, load the gun, institute a plan with an accomplice to commit armed robbery, take the gun, shoot someone between the eyes, flee, hide, and spend the money - all consistent with someone who knows exactly what he’s doing?"
Anti-testing activists often insist that children be judged not by just one test score, but by a more synthesized and integrated set of measures. These activists also insist that many tests, including IQ tests, are unreliable and invalid, especially for certain subpopulations. It won't surprise me, though, if anti-death-penalty activists completely contradict the anti-testers, in their attempts to convince us that one test score - that IQ measure - should be enough to keep a brutal criminal off Death Row.