Should he be on trial?

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:15

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/02/22/death.html

An IQ of 42 places this gentleman way, way below eduational standards... he would be quite incapable of independance

Berserker · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:21

I was going to say he should simply be sectioned (or the US equivalent), but the fact that it was in some sort of hospital suggests he already has been.

With the limited facts I have, I'd say he's not of sound mind, and therefore shouldn't be put on trial. As the judge has already ordered a competency hearing, that'll likely be the outcome.

JohnnyG · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:23

He's clever enough to know that wrapping a belt around the man's neck will kill him so yep, trial, sentance, punishment

manor · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:27

How can he even understand what a crime is and therefore actually know whether he has commited a crime or not?

I don't think he should go on trial. Surely he won't be able to understand the environment nevermind the process.

Putting a belt around someones throat is not the wisest of actions, but who left the belt in the room with two mental patients?

Are there any more links to further info on this?

robmiller · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:30

I doubt he can survive in the "real world" (hence him being in an institution), I doubt he'd last 5 minutes in prison. Nothing we can do about people like that but keep them institutionalised for their entire lives

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:39

manor said:
Putting a belt around someones throat is not the wisest of actions, but who left the belt in the room with two mental patients?

'tards dont strangle each other on reflex

VeNT · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:41

should never have been alowed out?

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:41

robmiller said:
I doubt he can survive in the "real world" (hence him being in an institution), I doubt he'd last 5 minutes in prison. Nothing we can do about people like that but keep them institutionalised for their entire lives

Lethals injections of course, but that is on the preclusion that such an individual would not be a use to society in any way...

I think that if he knows enough to strangle someone, then he should know enough to go on trial for it...

Nix · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:42

Trail - yes.
Sentanced with diminished reponsibility though.

JohnnyG · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:42

cleanbluesky said:
'tards dont strangle each other on reflex

Assuming that is fact, then of course he should be charged with murder

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:44

Nix said:
Trail - yes.
Sentanced with diminished reponsibility though.

Why, because he's not as smart as the average criminal?

Should we only give harsh sentance to smart crims?

VeNT · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:45

wait, whos to say that he KNEW what he was doing?
maybe the other guy asked him to do it,
whatever happens he has a VERY strong defence based on diminished responsibility from what I can see.
sectioned and locked away for life maybe, people like him need to be wards of the state

G|mp · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:45

JohnnyG said:
He's clever enough to know that wrapping a belt around the man's neck will kill him so yep, trial, sentance, punishment

As much as it pains me to agree

VeNT · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:45

cleanbluesky said:
Why, because he's not as smart as the average criminal?

Should we only give harsh sentance to smart crims?

its just meens that he is too stupid to know what he did was wrong

manor · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:46

cleanbluesky said:
'tards dont strangle each other on reflex

Bad phrase there mister CBS sir.

But you are right, they don't. But would he have know for definite that he was doing any wrong?

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:46

cleanbluesky said:
Lethals injections of course, but that is on the preclusion that such an individual would not be a use to society in any way...

Polished your jackboots recently?

Nix · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:47

cleanbluesky said:
Why, because he's not as smart as the average criminal?

Should we only give harsh sentance to smart crims?

Yes. The guy is obviously unable to function in the real world. A crime is a crime, but his mental retardation probably means he doesn't realise what he did was wrong or why. He probably had a temper tantrum and attacked the other man, much like a small child - except with a belt... around the neck.

Smarter people know better and are far more resposible over their crimes and therefore should be punished accordingly.

Jokester · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:47

VeNT said:
wait, whos to say that he KNEW what he was doing?
maybe the other guy asked him to do it,
whatever happens he has a VERY strong defence based on diminished responsibility from what I can see.
sectioned and locked away for life maybe, people like him need to be wards of the state

That's exactly what I was thinking, nowhere did I read that he had a motive or knew what he was doing.

Jokester

me227 · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:47

VeNT said:
should never have been alowed out?

Allowed out from where?

He'll probably just end up in a prison for the mentally ill. Which probably isn't too much different from what he's currently in.

Assuming he lived in the Fairfield centre.

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:48

JohnnyG said:
He's clever enough to know that wrapping a belt around the man's neck will kill him so yep, trial, sentance, punishment

Your stance is based on the assumption that he knew the consequences of his actions and was actually able to control them. With an IQ of 42 the first is definately debatable and the second may also be questionable.