Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Greenspan 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium Presentation

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 51 Ad

Greenspan 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium Presentation

This is Dr. Stephen Greenspan's summary comments presentation made as part of an Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium at the 2010 AAIDD conference in Providence RI. A brief summary can be found at the following link.

http://tinyurl.com/2ehygh3

This is Dr. Stephen Greenspan's summary comments presentation made as part of an Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium at the 2010 AAIDD conference in Providence RI. A brief summary can be found at the following link.

http://tinyurl.com/2ehygh3

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Greenspan 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium Presentation (20)

More from Kevin McGrew (20)

Advertisement

Greenspan 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium Presentation

  1. 1.
  2. 2. COMMENTS BY AN “EMINENCE GRISE”<br /> (original title of my talk)<br />(Steve Greenspan)<br />“Atkins” symposium at AAIDD conference in Providence, June 2010 <br />
  3. 3. Marc Tasse has dubbed me the “eminence grise” of the AAIDD manuals,<br />Referring to the fact that I am heavily cited, this implies that I have had considerable influence over the manual<br />
  4. 4. This is not really the case. I first saw the book when it came out, like everyone else<br />And my ideas while heavily cited have not been followed in the manner I would have liked<br />
  5. 5. The “green book” is an accomplishment with many good things about it <br />The committee is justifiably proud of it<br />
  6. 6. BUT 3 RELATED THINGS DISAPPOINTED ME:<br />(ideas of mine that have been cited but not really followed) <br />
  7. 7. THESE 3 THINGS ALL HAVE MAJOR IMPLICATIONS FOR ATKINS ASSESSMENTS. <br />MY CONVICTION AS TO THEIR IMPORTANCE HAS, IN FACT, ONLY BEEN REINFORCED AND DEEPENED BY MY EXPERIENCE AS AN ATKINS EVALUATOR AND CONSULTANT<br />
  8. 8. 15 minutes is not enough time to go into these three things in detail. Send me an e-mail and I will send you the full paper <br /> STEPHEN.GREENSPAN@GMAIL.COM<br />
  9. 9. Even so, there is not enough time, so excuse me if I “speed-talk” like an auctioneer<br />
  10. 10. I will mention the first 2 things briefly, and <br />focus mainly on the third thing<br />
  11. 11. THE FIRST THING IS THAT 3 DECADES AGO I PROPOSED A TRIPARTITE MODEL OF INTELLIGENCES: <br /><ul><li> CONCEPTUAL (ACADEMIC) INTELLIGENCE (IQ)
  12. 12. PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE
  13. 13. SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE </li></li></ul><li>THIS TRIPARTITE CONTENT MODEL OF INTELLIGENCE WAS ACTUALLY FIRST PROPOSED BY E.L. THORNDIKE IN 1920<br />MY CONTRIBUTION WAS REFORMULATING IT AS A BASIS FOR DEFINING ID (AS A DISORDER CHARACTERIZED BY DEFICITS IN ALL THREE INTELLIGENCE DOMAINS<br />EDWARD THORNDIKE<br />OTHERS WHO HAVE ENDORSED THIS CONTENT MODEL (OR SOMETHING CLOSE) <br />J.P. GUILFORD<br />BOB STERNBERG<br />JOHN B. CARROLL<br />
  14. 14. INSTEAD, BOB SCHALOCK A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO (in his 1999 book on adaptive behavior and even before that) TURNED IT INTO A “TRIPARTITE MODEL OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR” AND THIS WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE RED AND GREEN BOOKS<br />ROBERT SCHALOCK<br />
  15. 15. BOB TERMED IT A “HEGELIAN SYNTHESIS” BUT I CONSIDERED IT UNFORTUNATE<br />G.W.F. Hegel transformed (and fundamentally altered)<br />
  16. 16. THE REASON IS BECAUSE INTELLIGENCE (BROADLY VIEWED) GOES TO THE HEART OF THE ID NATURAL TAXON, BUT KEEPING ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SEPARATE FROM INTELLIGENCE MEANS THAT IQ CONTINUES TO REIGN SUPREME<br /> KING IQ<br /> (still on his throne) <br />
  17. 17. THE SECOND THING HAS TO DO WITH MY IDEAS ABOUT GULLIBILITY AND SOCIAL VULNERABILITY <br />
  18. 18. WHILE THE LAST 2 MANUALS (ESPEC. THE RED BOOK) FOUND MY IDEAS INTERESTING, THEY CONSIDERED GULLIBILITY JUST ONE OF MANY ID-RELATED POTENTIAL MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIORS <br />I, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE YET TO MEET SOMEONE WHO TRULY HAS ID WHO DOES NOT RAISE CONCERN IN LOVED ONES ABOUT THEIR POTENTIAL FOR BEING MANIPULATED AND DUPED <br />
  19. 19. IN A RECENT PAPER ON “FOOLISH ACTION” THAT IS ON THE HOME PAGE OF MY WEBSITE, I DEVELOPED THE NOTION THAT GULLIBILITY IS ONE OF 3 TYPES OF “RISK-UNAWARENESS”. <br /> PAPER IS AT<br />STEPHEN-GREENSPAN.COM <br />
  20. 20. RISK-UNAWARENESS, STEMMING FROM COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS, GOES TO THE HEART OF THE ID NATURAL “TAXON” (BEHAVIORAL PHENOTYPE) AND WHY ID IS SEEN AS A DISABILITY (AND NOT JUST A BENIGN FORM OF HUMAN VARIATION) <br />SUCH A BEHAVIORAL PHENOTYPE (NOT SPECIFIED ANYWHERE IN THE GREEN BOOK) WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IN ATKINS DIAGNOSIS AND WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT GULLIBILITY—ALONG WITH OTHER FORMS OF RISK-UNAWARENESS—IS CENTRAL TO THE ID CONSTRUCT<br />
  21. 21. THE THIRD THING (WHICH FLOWS LOGICALLY FROM 1 AND 2) HAS TO DO WITH THE NEED TO EXPAND THE CONSTRUCT OF ID TO INCLUDE A BROADER RANGE OF PEOPLE <br />
  22. 22. Greenspan, S. & Switzky, H.N. (2003). Execution exemption should be based on actual vulnerability, not disability label. Ethics and Behavior. <br />In this paper, in a special Atkins issue published in 2003 not long after the ruling, Harvey Switzky and I argued that execution exemption should be expanded to include a wider class of people who are socially vulnerable and fit the ID phenotype regardless of whether they fit the existing restricted definition of MR<br />
  23. 23. A PROBLEM WITH THE ATKINS RULING IS IT DIDN’T REALLY GO INTO THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE WITH ID SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM THE DP<br />SWITZKY AND I SPECIFIED 3 KINDS OF VULNERABILITIES THAT ID DEFENDANTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO MANIFEST WHEN CAUGHT UP IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM<br />THESE ALL PERTAIN TO THE GREATER NAIVITE(SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPAIRMENT) OF PEOPLE WITH ID AND RELATED NEURO-DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS<br />
  24. 24. NAÏVE OFFENDER<br />LESS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE CRIMINAL NATURE OF AN ACTIVITY OR THE LIKELIHOOD OF GETTING IN TROUBLE<br />(FULL OR PARTIAL LACK OF MENS REA)<br /><ul><li>MAY HAVE GONE ALONG WITH OTHERS WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS HAPPENING
  25. 25. MAY HAVE BEEN LEFT “HOLDING THE BAG” </li></li></ul><li>NAÏVE CONFESSOR<br />LESS ABLE TO RECOGNIZE OR PROTECT ONESELF FROM INTERROGATIVE PLOYS <br /><ul><li>MORE LIKELY TO WAIVE MIRANDA RIGHTS
  26. 26. MORE LIKELY TO MAKE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
  27. 27. MORE LIKE TO CONFESS, EVEN WHEN INNOCENT</li></li></ul><li>NAÏVE DEFENDANT<br />LESS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HELPFUL OR HARMFUL IN A LEGAL PROCEEDING<br /><ul><li>INAPPROPRIATE COURTROOM DEMEANOR
  28. 28. DISASTROUS PERFORMANCE ON THE STAND
  29. 29. UNABLE TO PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION TO COUNSEL
  30. 30. UNABLE TO INITIATE OR CONSIDER A PLEA DEAL</li></li></ul><li>WHERE WE WERE LEADING WITH OUR 2003 PAPER IS THAT IF THE ATKINS DECISION HAD BEEN BASED ON AN ARTICULATED THEORY OF MITIGATION, BASED ON THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE WITH ID ARE TOO NAÏVE TO DESERVE FULL CRIMINAL CUPLABILITY, THEN IT STANDS TO REASON THAT A BROADER CLASS OF NAÏVE DEFENDANTS DESERVES SIMILAR PROTECTION<br />THIS SAME ARGUMENT CAN ALSO BE USED TO BROADEN THE CONSTRUCT OF ID FROM THE RESTRICTIONS PLACED BY IQ CEILINGS <br />
  31. 31. AT THE GREEN BOOK ROLL-OUT 1 OR 2 YEARS AGO, I ASKED THE COMMITTEE WHY THE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT TAKEN TO EXPAND THE CONSTRUCT, AS “ID” COULD EASILY MEAN MORE THAN “MR” <br />MICHAEL WEHMEYER<br />MIKE WEHMEYER RESPONDED THAT IT WAS NOT DONE (TO PARAPHRASE) “BECAUSE THE DEFINITION AFFECTS PEOPLE’S LIVES IN PROFOUND WAYS” (IN MY VIEW EXACTLY THE REASON WHY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE)<br />
  32. 32. I hate to be a cynic (so what else is new) but I have to think that the reason is part was <br />KEEPING A PROMISE MADE AT THE TIME OF THE NAME CHANGE VOTE THAT ID IS JUST A SEMANTIC SHIFT WITH NO IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVALENCE RATES<br />
  33. 33. ALTHOUGH EVERY MANUAL CLAIMS THAT IMPACT ON PREVALENCE RATE WAS NOT CONSIDERED, THE FACT IS THAT CHANGES IN THE IQ CEILING (“HEMLINE”) HAVE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVALENCE <br />long dress <br />(ceiling of 70 in 1973, 1977, 1983)<br /> mid-length dress<br />ceiling of 75 (1992) OR 70-75 (2002, 2010) <br />short skirt <br />(ceiling of 85 in 1961) <br />
  34. 34. THESE HEMLINE FLUCTUATIONS ARE DISCUSSED IN CHAPTER ONE (A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW) IN THIS 2006 BOOK (CO-EDITED BY HARVEY SWITZKY AND ME)<br />(AVAILABLE THROUGH AAIDD.ORG OR AMAZON.COM)<br /> HARVEY SWITZKY<br />
  35. 35. THE DROPPING OF THE BORDERLINE SUB-CATEGORY (LOWERING THE HEMLINE FROM 85 TO 70) IN 1973 WAS OBVIOUSLY MOTIVATED BY CONCERN ABOUT “FALSE POSITIVES”, ESPEC. IN MINORITY YOUTHS<br />(also reflecting the then-widespread ignoring of prong two)<br />
  36. 36. THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY TOO DRASTIC A CUT, AND RESULTED IN A NEW SERIOUS PROBLEM OF “FALSE NEGATIVES”<br />(AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THAT A STANDARD DEVIATION UNIT IS THE WRONG BASIS FOR DEFINING A HUMAN SERVICE DISORDER?) <br />
  37. 37. RAISING THE HEMLINE TO 75 (BLUE BOOK) AND 70-75 (RED AND GREEN BOOKS) HELPED, BUT DID NOT REALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM<br />THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO FIT THE ID TAXON (HAVE NEURO-DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS WHICH LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE AND AVOID RISK) WITH IQ IN THE 80’S<br />
  38. 38. THE FACT IS THAT NO AMOUNT OF IQ GERRYMANDERING WILL SUBSTITUTE FOR HAVING A VALID DEFINITION OF THE ID TAXON <br />(BY THE WAY, I WISH THE T&C COMMTTEE WOULD ADMIT THAT THE SHIFT FROM 70 TO “70-TO-75” WAS A POLICY DECISION, MOTIVATED MAINLY BY THE NEED TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE CLASS, RATHER THAN MAINTAIN THE FICTION THAT IT WAS SOLELY MOTIVATED BY RELIABILITY CONCERNS. IT WOULD ELIMINATE A LOT OF DIVERSIONARY DEBATE IN ATKINS PROCEEDINGS AND MAKE IT EASIER TO ARRIVE AT JUST DECISIONS) <br />
  39. 39. THERE ARE THREE NOTABLES WHO HAVE HELPED SHAPE MY CONVICTION THAT ID IS CONSTRUCTED TOO NARROWLY<br />
  40. 40. The first notable is my brother Alan , who has PDD and has always fallen between the service agency cracks because his IQ (in 80’s) does not reflect his profound social and practical intelligence deficits<br /> MY BROTHER ALAN <br />(A DIFFERENT KIND OF ECONOMIST)<br />
  41. 41. THE SECOND NOTABLE IS RICHARD LAPOINTE, A CONNECTICUT MAN WITH SEVERE COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL DEFICITS <br />IN DECIDING WHETHER TO ACCEPT HIS PHONY COERCED CONFESSION, THE COURT FOCUSED SOLELY ON HIS IQ IN THE 80’S, AND NOT ON HIS EXTREME GULLIBILITY AND IMPAIRED SOCIAL PROCESSING ABILITY (FOUND IN ALL PEOPLE WITH HIS AUTISTIC-LIKE DISORDER)<br />RICHARD LAPOINTE<br />BORN WITH A BRAIN MALFORMATION: “DANDY-WALKER SYNDROME”<br />
  42. 42. IN FACT, I FIRST BECAME INTERESTED IN GULLIBILITY –AND ITS UNIVERSALITY IN PEOPLE WITH ID AND RELATED NEURO-DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS--BECAUSE OF LAPOINTE AND MY EXPLORATION OF WHY PEOPLE WITH ID ARE AT RISK OF GIVING FALSE CONFESSIONS <br />I DEDICATED MY BOOK TO HIM<br />(AND WE ALL PRAY HE WILL BE RELEASED SOON AFTER 20 YEARS BEHIND BARS) <br /> 2009 PUBLICATION DATE<br />
  43. 43. THE THIRD NOTABLE IS YOKOMAN HEARN, A CONDEMNED PRISONER IN TEXAS<br />My Hearn affidavit is on www. stephen-greenspan.com <br />& click on “forensic consulting”<br /> YOKAMON HEARN<br />Hearn’s Atkins claim was initially denied. He had many adaptive behavior deficits (from Jim Patton) and a supportable diagnosis of FASD (Pablo Stewart) but his full-scale IQ was considered too high, in spite of neuropsychological evidence (from Dale Watson) of cognitive impairments. <br />In an Aff., I argued that for people with known brain damage, full-scale IQ is notoriously unreliable. Therefore, other indices of “deficits in intellectual functioning” should be substituted. This argument, which converts a prong 2 case to a prong 1 and 2 case, was accepted by a federal judge although disputed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals <br />
  44. 44. As a result of my widely-circulated affidavit for Hearn, I have become known as the “Saint Jude of Hopeless Atkins cases” <br />A mixed blessing, as I have to say “no” a lot, if there is no evidence of brain damage, insignificant prong two deficits and few examples of other prong one deficits <br />
  45. 45. ACTUALLY, THE SAINT JUDE TITLE COULD ALSO GO TO KEITH WIDAMAN WHO PERSUADED A TULARE COUNTY CALIFORNIA JUDGE TO APPROVE IN 2004 THE ATKINS PETITION OF JORGE JUNIOR VIDAL, IN SPITE OF FULL-SCALE IQ SCORES WELL ABOVE THE ID CEILING<br /> KEITH WIDAMAN <br />VIDAL, LIKE HEARN, WAS DIAGNOSED WITH FASD, HAD SIGNIFICANT ADAPTIVE DEFICITS, AND HAD COGNITIVE DEFICITS THAT THE JUDGE ACCEPTED AS MEETING PRONG ONE <br />
  46. 46. This argument for an exemption to an IQ ceiling for individuals with FASD was used successfully by the University of Washington FASD team recently in a Texas case, when they convinced a jury (in a very pro-DP county) to return a sentence of LWOP <br />Joe Estrada, Jr.<br />on trial in Victoria, TX<br />
  47. 47. SEVERAL STATES, WHEN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ADULT RESIDENTIAL DD SERVICES, HAVE ALREADY ADOPTED SUCH A “FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE” FORMULA FOR DIAGNOSING MR, IN CASES OF NOTED BRAIN DAMAGE AND VERY IMPAIRED ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR<br />STATES OF WA AND MINNESOTA ARE TWO EXAMPLES<br />
  48. 48. IT IS TOO BAD, IN MY OPINION, THAT THE GREEN BOOK DID TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NAME CHANGE TO EXPAND THE CONSTRUCT OR AT THE LEAST, TO RAISE THE POSSIBILITY OF A BRAIN DAMAGE <br />“ID-EQUIVALENCE” OR “IQ EXEMPTION”<br />
  49. 49. THIS WOULD RAISE THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING TWO PATHWAYS INTO ID STATUS:<br />TRADITIONAL CRITERIA (BELOW APPROX MINUS 2 S.D. ON BOTH IQ AND ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR) <br /> WHERE THERE IS KNOWN BIOLOGICAL ETIOLOGY (SUCH AS FASD): IQ BELOW SAY 85 BUT VERY SERIOUS ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR DEFICITS AND OTHER INDICES OF PRONG ONE, SUCH AS EXEC. FUNCTIONING DEFICITS<br />TWO PATHWAYS INTO ID<br />AN IDEA BEING PROPOSED BY JAMES HARRIS, A PSYCHIATRIST AT JOHNS HOPKINS AND A MEMBER OF THE DSM-V ID COMMITTEE <br />JIM HARRIS<br />
  50. 50. IT’S TOO BAD THIS DUAL PATHWAY APPROACH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE GREEN BOOK, AS IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO CONVINCE COURTS THAT A DESERVING PERSON SHOULD BE GIVEN ATKINS PROTECTION <br />
  51. 51. BUT IT IS TOO BAD MAINLY BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A DEFINITION OF ID THAT IS CLOSER TO CAPTURING THE TRUE AND FULL NATURE OF THE DISORDER<br />
  52. 52. MAYBE DSM-5 WILL GET IT RIGHT<br /> (MY VIEW OF THE GREEN BOOK)<br />I UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE IDEAS BEING CIRCULATED IS COINING A NEW TERM OF “DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT” WITH A PHENOMENOLOGICAL DEFINITION AND NO IQ CUT-OFF <br />
  53. 53. THAT IS ALMOST TOO MUCH TO HOPE FOR, HOWEVER, GIVEN OUR FIELD’S PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC HISTORY OF BASING THE ID CONSTRUCT ON ARBITRARY IQ (AND NOW, ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR) CUT-OFFS<br />THE MYSTIQUE OF NUMBERS<br />
  54. 54. Maybe Marc should have dubbed me “curmudgeon” instead of “eminence grise” <br />
  55. 55. Website: <br />www.stephen-greenspan.com<br /> Contact: stephen.greenspan@gmail.com<br />

×