Should he be on trial?

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:11

Etaqua said:
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.

I suggest you look up what retarded means.

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

JohnnyG · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:12

VeNT said:
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

He is in a mental institute & is a threat to others...

Etaqua · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:12

Sleepy said:
I suggest you look up what retarded means.

"Mental retardation (also called mental handicap and the UK Mental Health Act (1983) defines mental impairment and severe mental impairment) is a term for a pattern of persistently slow learning of basic motor and language skills ("milestones") during childhood, and a significantly below-normal global intellectual capacity as an adult. One common criterion for diagnosis of mental retardation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70."

What's your point?

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:13

cleanbluesky said:
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...

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

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:16

cleanbluesky said:
Cant find what you are hinting at, any links

T4 was the name of the NAZI medical program that killed those that were considered medically unfit to serve society. Special Treatment was a euphanism used by that program.

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:21

Etaqua said:
"Mental retardation (also called mental handicap and the UK Mental Health Act (1983) defines mental impairment and severe mental impairment) is a term for a pattern of persistently slow learning of basic motor and language skills ("milestones") during childhood, and a significantly below-normal global intellectual capacity as an adult. One common criterion for diagnosis of mental retardation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70."

What's your point?

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

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.

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.

Etaqua · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:27

Sleepy said:
Also from an ethical standpoint can you punish someone who doesn't understand why he's being punished?

Yes. There are very few circumstances where someone should be allowed to get away with murder, and ignorance of murder laws really shouldn't be one.

Allowing him to get away with this is giving preferential treatment to certain groups of people. Why should he be allowed to get away with murder just for having a low IQ?

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

manor · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:32

This gives more info on the case and also paints a much better picture than the meer scrap we have been fed

another link

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:41

Etaqua said:
Yes. There are very few circumstances where someone should be allowed to get away with murder, and ignorance of murder laws really shouldn't be one.

Allowing him to get away with this is giving preferential treatment to certain groups of people. Why should he be allowed to get away with murder just for having a low IQ?

Ignorance of the law is one thing that should generally not be a get out of jail card, but not understanding a fundamental societal more: Thou shalt not kill, is an alltogether different kettle of fish. If he's too retarded to understand then he cannot be punished, if he does have some understanding then a trial may be called for. However you cannot send someone with such a low IQ to a prison. So from the practical viewpoint you'd end up sentancing him to a mandatory incarceration in an institute. Something that he's allready, for all intents and purposes, subject to.

Sanzy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:43

Being in a mental institution would be worse im sure.. he will be drugged up for the rest of his life anyways so he will kinda be punished then , i qould prefer to be in a normal prison then a mental instituion

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:46

manor said:
This gives more info on the case and also paints a much better picture than the meer scrap we have been fed

another link

A failure of the system. I think the picture sums up the futility of judicial action in this case.

Etaqua · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:53

Sleepy said:
... you cannot send someone with such a low IQ to a prison.

Just because there is a chance he doesn't understand why he is being punished shouldn't mean nothing happens to him.

Justice must be served. He commited a crime, therefore he must be punished.

Edit: just read the article.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060226/EDIT01/602260345/1090/EDIT said:
The fact that Beaudoin, a 50-year-old with autism who rarely communicated, and Shuman, a 20-year-old with mental retardation and a history of violent and unpredictable behavior, were roommates is a symptom of what's wrong with Ohio's mental health services.

He has a history of violence and is unstable. Putting him in prison would stop him from harming law abiding, functioning members of the public.

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 23:00

Etaqua said:
Just because there is a chance he doesn't understand why he is being punished shouldn't mean nothing happens to him.

Justice must be served. He commited a crime, therefore he must be punished.

Its yet to be determined if he commited a crime. And even if he did justice is not blind and should be tempered with mercy. I cannot see that incarceration in a main stream prison facility would be suitable. He'd be so vulnerable it beggers belief.

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 23:02

Etaqua said:
He has a history of violence and is unstable. Putting him in prison would stop him from harming law abiding, functioning members of the public.

Putting him back into a facility that could properly manage him would be better so that autistic inmates of a residential facility don't get killed.

Etaqua · 26 Feb 2006 at 23:08

Sleepy said:
Its yet to be determined if he commited a crime. He'd be so vulnerable it beggers belief.

He confessed to the crime.

Sleepy said:
Putting him back into a facility that could properly manage him would be better so that autistic inmates of a residential facility don't get killed.

He was already in one, clearly it wasn't working. Solitary confinement may work, but would that really be better for him than prison? Solitary confinement is sometimes used as torture, by the way.

Sleepy · 26 Feb 2006 at 23:14

Etaqua said:
He confessed to the crime.

Irrelevant, especially with someone with such a low IQ. It was his state of mind at the time he acted thats relevant.

He was already in one, clearly it wasn't working. Solitary confinement may work, but would that really be better for him than prison? Solitary confinement is sometimes used as torture, by the way.

They moved him from a facility that could manage him properly to one that placed a violent person in with a 50 year old autistic man wha was killed during the day without the staff noticing. This reflects badly on the system but does not indicate that a juvenile detention centre is the correct place for him.

Von Smallhausen · 26 Feb 2006 at 23:27

Whether mentally fit or not, he has killed another Human Being. It is a valid point as to whether he should be put on trial but he should certainly not be walking the streets free as a bird.

Section him until that danger is passed.