well yes. however if that was the case he'd probably be committed for a period of time.
But he didn;t so it;s a pointless argument s the judgement wouldn't have been the same would it?
Firstly I was asking Jester not you.
Secondly, if the reason for not prosecuting him is because he is autistic and couldn't have a "guilty mind" or whatever the legal terminology is, then surely that must apply no matter what the consequences to the baby?
So the judgement would have to have been the same - no charge - or else the decision to not prosecute is flawed (as I and many other believe).