On Aug. 9, in a headline-grabbing case, Texas executed two convicted murderers. One might not think that Texas, dubbed "America’s death chamber," would garner much publicity for two more state-sponsored lethal injections, but it turns out that one had a twist.

Oliver Da-vid Cruz, executed for the 1988 abduction, rape and stabbing of Kelly Dono-van, had questionable mental capacity according to defense attorneys, and his low IQ made an already gray and complicated area even grayer.

But, does one’s IQ exempt him or her from responsibility for actions taken? This key question has been glossed over by an international media in a hurry to point out American excesses and "barbarism." It appears "Oliver Cruz the opportunity" has far eclipsed Oliver Cruz the man, all while these media hypocritically castigate Texas for its lack of humanity.

The gut-twisting case is also attractive because it is an election year, and rightly or wrongly, Cruz’s ghost will haunt George W. Bush. But to Bush’s detractors, it is this possibility for damage that is more important than the fate of the dead man, or indeed, than the precedent set for Texas.

The death penalty has always stirred controversy. Each time it is enforced, it prompts the public to question whether government-sanctioned death is appropriate, and whether a jury of 12 ordinary folks is competent to render such a decision. There can be no easy answer.

But presently, capital punishment is part of Texas law. That same law granted Cruz a fair trial and numerous appeals. When the spectre of diminished capacity was raised, the jury listened carefully, weighed the possibility, and concluded that Cruz, though of low intelligence, still knew the difference between right and wrong when he and an accomplice committed the murder.

Yes, Cruz had a low IQ, although how low depends on what test is looked at. One test scored him at 63, while another scored him at 83. The latter, though described by those-who-make-the-rules as being at the lower end of normal, is normal. It is possible too, that Cruz didn’t "understand his rights within the legal system," and that his accomplice took advantage of his low intelligence, but the case isn’t about how smart Cruz was. It is about whether he understood the enormity of his deed at the time it was committed. The evidence, along with his confession, says that he did.

His tearful apology was refreshing, but it only reinforces the jury’s decision that he in fact knew right from wrong. (If his IQ was too low to permit him to understand his crime, how was he able to reach epiphany?)

Yes, there are problems with the death penalty system, and convictions can be flawed. This is why murder defendants must be tried carefully, and given every defense legally available, even if it means justice drags out for years.

If one holds that "capital punishment" means: "them without the capital get the punishment," he or she should work to change this injustice. Just remember, insisting that a low IQ entitles a murderer to leniency does not serve the cause of justice any more than does executing the innocent.

If, however, it is accepted that a defendant’s disability does not exempt him from moral responsibility when he is competent to comprehend good and evil, it must also be accepted that the state of Texas acted appropriately, even if it did not act popularly.