Understanding the issue of intellectual disability is crucial to building a healthy society. U.S. law defines the disability regarding a person as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being considered as having such an impairment” (“U.S. Code definition,” 2020, para. 1). However, until recently, there were problems with the definition of intellectual disability in American law. This paper aims at giving a summary of the journal article about the history of intellectual disability, describe a related court case, and provide a personal opinion on why educators should acquaint themselves with the topic.
For further analysis, the article “Evaluating Intellectual Disability after Moore v. Texas Redux” by Updegrove and Vaughn (2019) was chosen. Bobby James Moore was sentenced to death for manslaughter in 1980, despite the clear signs and evidence of his intellectual disability. The sentence was carried out, and only in 2002, the U.S. law prohibiting the use of the death penalty for individuals with intellectual disabilities was passed.
Nonetheless, this law left room for discrepancies in determining intellectual disability. Then, on March 28, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a Moore v. Texas I (2017) ruling recognizing the inadequacy of the court standards defining the state of intellectual disability.
The article dealt with court cases related to the recognition of convicts as intellectually disabled, providing a summary of Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), and Hall v. Florida (2014) cases. The authors also explained how the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling in Ex parte Briseno (2004) spurred the fateful Supreme Court ruling in Moore v. Texas I (2017). It was also noted that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recognized Moore intellectually able in Ex parte Moore II (2018) (Updegrove & Vaughn, 2019). In the “Conclusions” section, some recommendations to forensic experts were offered.
The Supreme Court Moore v. Texas II (2019) ruling later reversed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling. Besides, the Supreme Court ruling in Moore v. Texas I (2017) was based on the petition of the American Psychological Association, which acted as amicus (Moore v. Texas, 2017). The petitioners questioned the legality of using the standards developed in court judicially as the diagnostic tools for identifying the intellectual disability and suggested using generally accepted professional medical standards instead.
The chosen article and judicial case do not provide an exhaustive picture of the lives of people with intellectual disabilities in the United States. Therefore, I would like to know more about what conditions are considered today to determine the state of intellectual disability and what opportunities for social adaptation exist for intellectually disabled children and adults. Educators need to be aware of issues related to intellectual disability, especially of the everyday lives of children with intellectual disabilities.
After all, such children often experience school bullying, and the teacher is responsible for creating an inclusive space where these children would not feel infringed. Knowing the history of intellectual disability, helped me better understand how ruthless the state can be with its citizens. Therefore, if no one introduces changes regarding intellectually disabled children and adults, the situation will remain the same.
Thus, a summary of the journal article about the history of intellectual disability was analyzed, and related court case Moore v. Texas was described. A personal opinion on why educators should acquaint themselves with the topic was also provided. To summarize, modern society is treating people with intellectual disabilities in unreasonably cruel ways, and teachers need to remember this to be motivated to create an inclusive space for their students.
References
Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. ___ (2017).
Updegrove, A. H., & Vaughn, M. S. (2019). Evaluating intellectual disability after Moore v. Texas redux. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 47(4), 486-492.
U.S. Code Definition of disability. (2020). Web.