Should he be on trial?

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...

Nix · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:51

the thing is, he killed his room-mate which might mean his room-mate was probably as retarded and was unable of defending himself. Another punishment could probably be he is on probation at his home.

JohnnyG · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:53

VeNT said:
wait, whos to say that he KNEW what he was doing?
maybe the other guy asked him to do it,

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

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.

Aren't those all facts that need to be proved/disproved by a trial then?

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

Haly · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:55

I'd need to know a hell of a lot more than that news story presents to be able to work out if he should be on trial or not. Too many what ifs as it stands after reading that article.

panthro · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:55

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...

Thats ridiculous. I can't believe anyone could think that.

He is mentally unstable, and should be punished in some way or form, but not sent to a mainstream jail. Obviously you can't analyse the mind of someone with his intellect, but I'm thinking he should be sent to a more secure mental institution.

Jokester · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:56

cleanbluesky said:
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...

What it not be reasonable to assume though that he might have seen on multiple occasions other patients struggling against warders who are trying to restrain them. Might reinforce the idea to keep doing it until the other guy stopped?

Jokester

VeNT · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:56

JohnnyG said:
Aren't those all facts that need to be proved/disproved by a trial then?

not nessiceraly by trail, but maybe by just a judge hearing medical information.
ie if the docs all say he's too damn dumb to know what day it is, never mind if its wrong to kill someone, then theres no case

Nix · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:56

cleanbluesky said:
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

He's retarded, therefore he's slow. Maybe after being through all this he may be able to understand that what he did was wrong.

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 21:59

cleanbluesky said:
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

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

JohnnyG · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:00

VeNT said:
not nessiceraly by trail, but maybe by just a judge hearing medical information.
ie if the docs all say he's too damn dumb to know what day it is, never mind if its wrong to kill someone, then theres no case

Can a judge alone make such a decision in a 'case' like this?

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:01

cleanbluesky said:
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...

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

manor · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:01

JohnnyG said:
Aren't those all facts that need to be proved/disproved by a trial then?

Good use of a smiley there sir.

Why would that need to be proved by trial? He's already in a mental institute. His records there will detail in full what he is capable/incapable of doing/thinking.

VeNT · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:03

manor said:
Good use of a smiley there sir.

Why would that need to be proved by trial? He's arelady in a mental institute. His records there will detail in full what he is capable/incapable of doing/thinking.

my point exactly
if its KNOWN he is mentaly unstable (but was not diagnosed as a threat to others) then he should just be put away in a mental institute

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:04

JohnnyG said:
Aren't those all facts that need to be proved/disproved by a trial then?

Depends on the legal system if its at a trial or a pretial hearing or the determination of the prosecutor as to mental compency and whether the bloke should face trial.

Etaqua · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:07

Ignorance is not an excuse, even if you are mentally retarded.

If someone killed a family member and wasn't put away on the basis s/he is mentally retarded, would you feel justice had been served?

If he doesn't know killing is wrong, I doubt he will do much good in the real world anyway, so no point keeping him out of prison.

JohnnyG · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:09

manor said:
Why would that need to be proved by trial? He's already in a mental institute. His records there will detail in full what he is capable/incapable of doing/thinking.

Just because he's in a mental institute doesn't exclude him from the normal judicial system does it? Especially when there are facts that evidently need proving

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...

Should he be on trial?

Woman of Honour