(Goffman: 1973) In laymen's terms, this indicates that the mentally ill or the mentally retarded individual might not have a conscience, and might therefore not be able to know right from wrong.
In addition to these factors, the overall distinctions of "mental retardation" and "mental illness" are highly questionable. Some sources feel that the current IQ tests used to determine the extent of mental incapacity are believed to be incapable of accurately measuring all of a person's intelligence factors. Because of this, it becomes difficult to understand the definition of one being mentally ill or mentally retarded as being defined by only one type of test. This creates the problem of acknowledging the conditions of mental retardation and mental illness, where the levels of impairment in the human being are not accepted as standardized, and this indicates that there are serious difficulties in evaluating the exact specifics of how a human being is mentally impaired. As one source notes:.
"For the issue of mental retardation, though, is not simply an issue of IQ that indicates that there is a degree of impairment. There have to be other areas of social adaptation as it referred to, ways to [sic] functioning and living in the community that also need to show some kind of impairment as well." (People v. Kidd: 1997).
This serves to indicate that - since there are no standards that can be used that fully address the degree of the individual's mental impairment - that those who are mentally retarded or mentally ill cannot be placed on a scale or a means of general interpretation of impairment. What is certain is that more than one intelligence test should be used in order to determine the extent of the individual's impairment, and even in this respect the overall damage to the defendant's psyche might not be known.
The role of the courts in evaluating the mentally ill or the mentally retarded is to determine the extent of the condition.
