As inmate Hill notes:

Furthermore, if we are to briefly set aside the fundamental moral implications of a state putting to death a mentally impaired person -- namely me -- then we still have not yet even considered the clear-cut legal precedents established by our nation's judicial system. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 established conclusively in Atkins v. Virginia that the use of the death penalty against the retarded constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" as expressly barred by the Eighth Amendment. The legal underpinnings of the issue could not be more conclusive.

Even I can see that.

But, aside from these labyrinthine legal matters, the question of whether to end the life of me, a helplessly disabled man with at best a rudimentary, infant-like understanding of right and wrong, is inherently a moral issue. After all, what kind of society are we if we are willing to put a permanent end to the life of a helpless, intellectually feeble man such as myself? How would the carrying out of such an execution reflect on us, on our basic human decency? After all, as Mohandas Gandhi himself said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." As a proud democracy, we should hold ourselves to no less exacting a standard.

Just for the record, the article's a spoof. Unless The Onion has moved on to become a "serious" news outlet.

Anyone with a 70 IQ are SUPPOSED to be constitutionally protected from the death penalty. (Atkins v Virginia 2002)
90% of Dems are safe....
#7 | Posted by Greatamerican

Boldly stated, considering you give no sign of having read the article - thereby knowing it was a spoof.