Or at least it soon will be. Not the diagnosis, mind you, but the term "mental retardation." The politically-correct term will now be "intellectual disability." Change your pleadings accordingly, I suppose.
What is of real interest, however, is the new definition of mental retard--oops, there I go! make that--intellectual disability being proposed by the APA in the next edition of the DSM-5. Specifically, a decreased focus upon IQ testing. How that will affect Atkins claims remains to be seen. For more information, read on:
Looks like the standard is just becoming much more subjective. It will be easier to diagnose MR under this standard, but also easier to attack such a diagnosis. In regard to Atkins, it appears that this standard will make these claims even more of a "battle of the experts" than they already are.
I still have not got over "community supervision" for "probation." As if the general population cared or needed to care. Since when did we need two words when one sufficed? It really irks me, but I suppose I am intellectually bamboozled too.
Posts: 444 | Location: Austin, Texas, USA | Registered: January 06, 2010
Does anyone remember the Tim Kazurinsky sketch from SNL where he played the medical correspondent Dr. Jack Badofsky on Weekend Update? Used to stay things like if you get warts in strange places its called herpes, but if you get it from a convenience store worker its called slurpees.
Posts: 120 | Location: Chambers County Texas | Registered: March 03, 2003
It seems like it would be difficult to prove someone was in the "lower 3%" of his "cultural group." How do we get the data on the other 97%? "Intellectual disability" is such a squishy term. I know several people who are intellectually disabled, but you would not consider to be mentally retarded. I agree that it is an effort to cast a wider net of people who will attempt to avoid responsibility for their crimes.
Posts: 515 | Location: austin, tx, usa | Registered: July 02, 2001
