Teen with 47 IQ gets 100 years in sex abuse case

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

lol

So he commits a crime against society, and so society must care for him for the rest of his life?

Fail.

Dude, it's a shame I know - but it's better than hanging them. I see it as the price we pay to be civilized.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by paperplanes

 

As an ex-police officer in Texas, I can tell you that the judge is full of #.

Just in my area alone, we have two mental health facilities, and another that is a short two hours away . . .

I am sure that there is at least one near Paris, TX . . . and there are quite a few in the DFW metro area.

Isn't that troubling? A judge making such inane distortions of the facts in his own state? I'm just...at a loss for words. This is a link to the list of state hospitals in Texas www.dshs.state.tx.us... . Most (if not all) of these are prepared to house individuals whose mental defects have disqualified them for prison sentences. Get a clue, Judge Clifford.

For those who are interested, I located a Texas legal document from the mid-1990s relating the process for an insanity defense, including arguments of mental retardation. I'm not sure if the state law has changed since then--I'll have to have a look around for more recent documentation. The document in question is from the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence in the Texas State House of Representatives. It presents very simple, concise charts illustrating the process of presenting the insanity defense in the state of Texas. The following is from page 52 of the PDF (www.lrl.state.tx.us...):

Is there evidence to support mental illness or mental retardation? If yes, go on to civil commitment proceedings of either inpatient or outpatient treatment.

How simple. The defendant in this case clearly qualifies due to his known (and acknowledged by the court!) IQ falling well within the "mentally retarded" range. So the question is whether or not this is still an option under Texas state law. I'll try to find out.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

100 years for FONDLING? Are you # kidding me?

Read the article - The teen pleaded guilty to five counts, including aggravated sexual assault and indecency by contact, and a jury decided his punishment.

Legally "sane" adults have sex with underage children and don't get sentences like this.

It’s a shame isn’t it.

This is absolutely ridiculous and a clear abuse of power by this judge. He needs to be fired and this kid needs to at least get a new trial.

A jury decided the punishment.

This 6 year old will probably not even remember this five years from now.

Your own words lead me to believe you know nothing about child abuse.

Guess what, the kid will remember if for his whole entire long long life.

That's the problem with pedophilia - it’s a *living* crime - it doesn’t go away for life. Anyone who says it does is lying to you.

In fact, guess what?

When this 6 year old grows up - if he becomes a pedophile - you can bet your boots when he gets caught - his excuse will be “But I was molested as a child, it’s not my fault”...

The right thing to do here would be to get this kid the help he needs, NOT put him in the sex offender database, and let him live the rest of his life out of prison.

That depends.
Was he hiding with the 6 year old?
Was he detaining him?
Did the child cry and want to get away?
Did he threaten him?

Just because he’s *simple* - a low IQ - doesn’t necessarily make him stupid - in that the IQ doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t know right from wrong.

Nowhere does the article indicate the 18 year old lacks moral accountability.

This is a completely excessive and ridiculous sentence. It's as simple as that

Sorry, it’s not as simple as that.
Way to many gray areas here to make a informed decision.

Obviously the jury had enough information to make their decision, we can only hope it was the right one.

peace



[edit on 12-6-2009 by silo13]

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Prison is not THAT hard by any means of the imagination.

How is it better than killing him?


A man rapes and kills your daughter. The state says you have to foot the bill so the man can live the rest of his life in prison.


That is what you want?

100 years? seriously!? 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...

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Solomons]

reply to post by paperplanes


Yes, that is how the law works.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Very much agreed!

I will simply say, with confidence and experience that, the criminal justice system is run by, well, mainly criminals.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Prison is not THAT hard by any means of the imagination.

How is it better than killing him?


A man rapes and kills your daughter. The state says you have to foot the bill so the man can live the rest of his life in prison.


That is what you want?

You sound like Dick Cheney.

And since when does the victim have to pay right out of their pocket?

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Donnie Darko]

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Nice deflection and insult.

ANswer the question

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Nice deflection and insult.

ANswer the question

Well I'm not a dad yet so I can't really answer, but as long as he couldn't hurt anyone else, I would feel justice was served if he were in jail for life.

I would not want to honor my daughter with the blood of somebody else. As angry as I would be.

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]

reply to post by paperplanes


Hmmm.

I was an LEO 9 years ago. So I guess it has changed

[edit on 12/6/2009 by xxpigxx]

reply to post by Donnie Darko


I have four daughter's. If someone did that to any one of them, I would hunt them down.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

I have four daughter's. If someone did that to any one of them, I would hunt them down.

I guess people will always believe in revenge when it involves children.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Right on Donny,dont listen to the bloodthirsty savages.Asking for blood when it comes to revenge is infantile and results in a never ending circle of hate.Its about time humans surpass such animalistic tendencies and move on.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Right on Donny,dont listen to the bloodthirsty savages.Asking for blood when it comes to revenge is infantile and results in a never ending circle of hate.Its about time humans surpass such animalistic tendencies and move on.

People just can't be reasonable with the death penalty a lot of the time. It's like a religion or something.

Lower sexual inhibitions, combined with the sexual abuse examples given by corrupt Texas employees at residential facilities, puts these special people at double risk. They are sexually abused, then they emulate what their 'superiors' to do them. Granted, if you took away every corrupt employee, there would still be issues because the problem is innate nature as well.

Todays' news: "More Than 250 Punished For State School Resident Abuse"
www.kbtx.com...
It's an AP article that mentions:

State records show that 269 employees at Texas' 13 residential facilities for the mentally and developmentally disabled ... were fired or suspended in fiscal year 2008 for abusing or mistreating residents.

... 11 of the 269 firings or suspensions were considered Class I violations involving physical or sexual abuse that caused or may have caused serious physical injury.

... several former staffers are charged with staging "fight club"-type bouts among residents ...

I don't feel the defendent should be put into the 'regular' prison system to be buggered, raped and abused by hardened criminals (and guards) who have no excuse for thier indiscretions. The prison system in Texas even EXECUTES mentally retarded people. There needs to be some 'special circumstances' facilities and law reform.

reply to post by Donnie Darko

Well I'm not a dad yet so I can't really answer, but as long as he couldn't hurt anyone else, I would feel justice was served if he were in jail for life.

And since when does the victim have to pay right out of their pocket?

[edit on 6/12/2009 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


He is mentally *retarded* so to speak.If you can't share compassion with such a human being and his mistakes,let him serve a sentence that is justified for his state of mind and actions.Anything else is cruel and disgusting and those that justify it are also vile in their actions,imo of course!

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

He is mentally *retarded* so to speak.If you can't share compassion with such a human being and his mistakes,let him serve a sentence that is justified for his state of mind and actions.Anything else is cruel and disgusting and those that justify it are also vile in their actions,imo of course!