There are plenty of examples to which critics of the American justice system can point when arguing that an accusation is enough to condemn a person in practice, but I don't think any illustrates the point more clearly than a retardation trial. It's a lose/lose situation. If you're guilty, you're retarded. If you're innocent, you're really close to being retarded. The fact that a trial was required to make the determination, or that it even got past the grand jury is pretty much enough to put you in the social jail that is being retarded for life.

Daryl Atkins, for example, is the man whose trial is detailed in the story above. His stupidity undeniable, and yet people are so torn on whether he is actually, technically retarded that it's gone all the way to the Supreme Court. Win or lose, he loses. And we all had people like Daryl in our high schools. They were in gym class, usually, or lunch. They'd be the butt of endless jokes, and their retardation would be the subject of heated debate. No matter on which side of the issue you fell, you probably didn't hang out with them. The fact is that you simply wouldn't associate with a person who was even accused of retardation, guilty or not.


Daryl Atkins, above, is unbelievably dumb until proven retarded.

Analogcabin @ 4:29 PM
Permalink |