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

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

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...

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?

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:49

manor said:
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?

given that the concept of "wrong" cannot be measured and is not objective, and that it would be impossible to establish any act as objectively wrong I don't see why he shouldn't be trialled.

Although on second thoughts, he wouldn't make it in prison. Its a pretty nasty scenario all around. He's already institutionalised, so any other option would be institutionalisation in solitary and that really isnt pleasant for anyone...

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:50

Sleepy said:
Polished your jackboots recently?

Perhaps I should have added a smily onto what you quoted. I just don't think smilies add anything critical to my posts, although sometimes I would benefit from their use

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:51

Sleepy said:
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.

That depends on what you mean by consequence. When the dead 'simpleton' was still struggling, I'd imagine that anyone would take that as a signal that what they were doing was innapropriate...

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:53

Nix said:
Another punishment could probably be he is on probation at his home.

That would have to have some pretty big restrictions if the preofessionals decide that he can strangle things to death with no understanding of consequence or possible awareness of the act

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:10

Sleepy said:
That of course assumes the attacker has an intelectual understanding of what he's doing and whats going to happen. In this unusual case that is not proven

You would have to be mentally ill, not just slow, to be completely de-sensitised or unable to understand such obvious suffering or desperation of others...

Test this for yourself, by using body language to shock someone with mental retardation. If that guy is savvy enough to talk to people, savvy enough to go to court and talk on his own behalf, he can tell when someone is shocked or hurt etc...

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:12

Sleepy said:
I suggest you look up special treatment & T4 Even with a smilie your comment would bring up associations that many will find objectionable.

Cant find what you are hinting at, any links

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:22

Sleepy said:
Thats not my understanding of people with v. low IQ's

It depends how low you go. A person with mental retardation can experience it in any part of the brain, so any single function could be impaired - yet if there were even a question over the social capacity of an individual, likely enough he would be capable of understanding the most primitive and important forms of communication - the ones that cannot be mistaken and tha twe are predisposed to understand and react to - body language.

cleanbluesky · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:28

Sleepy said:
If one is retarded then ignorance is a possible excuse. IIRC IQs don't get much lower than 42.

50 or below - most adults cannot cope outside of an institution. They can typically be taught to read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. They typically require special training programs.

Between 50 and 75 - Generally cannot complete elementary school. Most adults will need help to cope with day to day living.

Between 75 and 105 - Generally cannot complete a college prep course in high school.

Between 105 and 115 - May graduate from college but generally, not with grades that would qualify them for graduate school.

Above 115 - No restrictions.

A rough guide. Under 25 can be considered severely mentally retarded, on the way to vegetable.

Also from an ethical standpoint can you punish someone who doesn't understand why he's being punished? From the practical viewpoint what would be the point of punishing someone whao cannot learn from the experience?

About 50% of cons don't fully understand punishment, thats why re-offending is so high

If its the case here that he didnot understand his actions nor cannot learn from the juducial consequence then a trial and punishment seems pointless. Better managment of him in an institute seems a preferable way foreward.

He is in for a rough ride, whatever happens