Autistic teenager kicked baby in the face
- Thread starter Mobius 1
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Well, what do you want?
A charge isn't going to help really. It might seem retributive in the short term, but in the long term it will make no difference.
Have you any idea what 'profoundly autistic' means?
For real?
Yes for real. If the person was profoundly autistic then the problem lies with those he should have been supervised by.
For real?
Severe mental illness which greatly reduces responsibility is generally accepted as good reason not to stick someone in prison.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,654
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Its not surprising, he has a medical condition.
The leading case i can think of is R v G and another, where a conviction should be dependant on proving the state of mind of the individual defendant, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, Latin for an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind.
He autistic, lacking the mental capacity, thats the end of it really.
The leading case i can think of is R v G and another, where a conviction should be dependant on proving the state of mind of the individual defendant, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, Latin for an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind.
He autistic, lacking the mental capacity, thats the end of it really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Exactly. Someone like that, in all honesty needs 24/7 monitoring, not a stupid jail sentence.
Just because somebody is Autistic shouldn't mean they can simply walk around stamping on seven month old babies in the street.
If he cannot be controlled he shouldn't be on the streets and if somebody was meant to be responsible for him, a parent or guardian then they should be taking whatever actions are appropriate.
If he cannot be controlled he shouldn't be on the streets and if somebody was meant to be responsible for him, a parent or guardian then they should be taking whatever actions are appropriate.
You;d break a mentally ill persons nose?
And you think that would do some good?
if it was my child, yes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Then you fail for letting your child near that person in the first place.
The point of the op outrage is because it has simply been dropped. I assume he feels those supervising him should be held accountable. As do I.
No it won't have "simply been dropped" it will have been refered to social services, and as i suspect something like this was as much of a shock for his carers as the parents of the kid, they will now be taking measures to protect others, other wise social will take him away for the safety of others and his own safety.
You're just trying to make it as offensive as possible while totally ignoring common sense.
what the hell? the child was in a a pram. not running about the shop.
If you wish the law to be involved, I imagine a civil case could be made against his relatives, although it might fail if there was no prescribed need for the family to supervise the youth before this incident.
No, I am going on the only information I have which is the article posted by the op. It gives no details of further action to be taken of any sort so why would I assume it would?
