What stands between convicted murderer Michael Rosales and the electric chair? The reliability evidence surrounding a standardized test:
The court in New Orleans delayed the execution based on claims by Rosales' lawyers that he is mentally retarded. The case will be sent back to a federal district court in Lubbock, where his defense attorneys will file a petition asking that the issue of his mental retardation be investigated further...
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled mentally retarded people may not be executed. Rosales, 30, had faced lethal injection for the fatal stabbing and beating of 67-year-old Mary Felder at her Lubbock apartment during a burglary almost seven years ago...
An intelligence test given to Rosales in January put his IQ at 73 and other tests determined he is mildly retarded, according to his appeal. An IQ of 70 is considered the threshold for retardation. Considering a five-point error rate on standardized intelligence scales, Rosales' appeal said the test results could put him at that threshold, and noted the Texas appeals court had halted an execution and allowed additional investigation for another inmate who had an IQ of 72.
I've written about this before. While I understand the compassion that motivates society not to want to put this kind of person to death, who among us believes that any further investigation of his intelligence will be unaffected by the fact that, if he is judged not to be mentally retarded, he's going to be put to death? It's hard to believe further investigation of his mental capacities will be unbiased, in that sense.
IQ tests were never meant to be used to save someone from the electric chair, and in these types of situations, the test is essentially a "Get Out of The Chair Free" card. Talk about high-stakes testing. What's more, it's my impression that activists who oppose testing in schools are quite in favor of using IQ tests to save murderers from a date with the executioner.
As I said before:
After all, researchers who use IQ scores to predict certain variables or who suggest that IQ scores should be used to make policy decisions (especially if their viewpoints are not particularly politically correct) often hear cries of outrage that such tests do not predict the whole person, that such tests don't tell you anything about motivation, or desire, or ambition, or potential, or "true" intelligence. So, why can't a prosecutor claim that when someone with an IQ of 65 murders another human, their actions speak louder than their test scores, and they should be judged on those actions?
Posted by kswygert at April 14, 2004 10:44 AM