Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by paperplanes
Yes, that is how the law works.
Hmmm...maybe not. Dallas Morning News is not my ideal resource, but alas--I am not anywhere near the Texas law archives to locate the pertinent
document in its entirety. I'll have to trust their research team. This is from a 2009 article that I recommend you all do
not read, unless
you've already had your final meal of the day and are of a resilient mind. This is from a death penalty case, but the referenced process presumably
applies to any mentally ill defendant of a criminal proceeding in the state (the final step [3] of the process is omitted here, as it pertains only to
death penalty cases). I've pulled the relevant excerpt (again, please be cautious about following to the full article):
www.dallasnews.com...
Under current state law, mentally ill defendants undergo tests of mental competence at several stages:
1. Before trial: Defendants must be able to understand the trial process and be able to communicate with their attorney and understand the
proceedings. A judge may make the determination at an examining trial where the defendant is represented by an attorney and may present evidence from
experts. The defendant may request a jury decision.
2. At the time of the crime: If the defendant claims at trial to be not guilty by reason of insanity, he must prove he did not know his conduct
was wrong while committing the crime. As in any criminal trial, he may request a judge or a jury.
An insanity defense seems obvious, and has indeed been successful for defendants more capable than this individual. The first phase of this insanity
defense evaluation would have entailed evidence from the evaluating psychiatrist, establishing the IQ of the defendant and the range of awareness it
suggests.
The issue of knowing right and wrong is a hazy one here. Knowing that something is "against the rules" is different from knowing precisely
why it is wrong or inappropriate. We expect even children in nursery school to know basic rules of right-from-wrong, but that doesn't in any
way mean that they know the real meaning behind why something is right or wrong. The latter is something you gain as you develop intellectually, and
only then should you be held fully responsible for violations of those rules. As the teen's father said, "He couldn't understand the seriousness of
what he did." That is a hallmark of this degree of mental incapacity and is, I believe, of great importance.
I wonder why, when established mental retardation (through competency hearings and mental evaluations) normally forestalls any further criminal
proceedings, this case was--from what we know--instead taken directly to a criminal trial. That shouldn't have happened. From the OP's article, it
seems the judge, jury and prosecutor essentially said, "Sure, he's mentally retarded, but whadya gonna do?".
I suspect and hope that this case will be thrown out.
[edit on 12/6/09 by paperplanes]
He should pay the time for his crime,i dont care what mental disabilities he has,but they should also take into
consideration that he does have mental disabilities and take that into account...8 years max i would give him with some therapy inbetween.100 years is
not justice its draconian... 