I don't understand?!?!?

Question

Why is it that just because someone is mentally "handicaped" they don't get served the death penelty?? I know they passed the law in 2002, but a man just raped a six year old girl and he got scared when the missing persons went national so he buried her alive in his yard...but because he is mentally "handicaped" he just gets to sit in jail??? They said he doesn't know right from wrong, So what lesson are they trying to teach him?? He's just gonna eat up our tax dollars...What caused them to make this law??

Answer 1

It cost more to execute some one than it does to keep him in prison for life. What you say is a MYTH!

It depends on how mentally handicapped, and if they know right from wrong. Many do not! Many have adult bodies but the mind of a 5 year old.

The Supreme Court ruled it was Cruel and Unusual punishment, therefore, the Supreme will send this back down for re-sentencing!

Do you have any clue what happens to pedophiles who kill children. Even if he were to be executed, the only way he will make it to that day is on death row, and then he still might not!

Answer 2

Individuals who are mentally handicapped are often not capable of mens rhea - the mental element of a crime.

Mens Rhea along with actus reus (the physical or actual crime) are two seperate elements.

Mens Rhea is connected with intent or nature of the crime.

While some crimes are absolute liability offenses such as speeding or some countries drug possession laws - that is you just need to commit the act.

Other crimes require you to have the mental capacity to commit the crime. In Canada there are different mental defences - one of which is called NCR - not criminally responsible.

The thing is though that individuals who are NCR do not get off on the crime - they end up getting indefinate sentences - that by pass regular sentencing guidelines, and can often include treatment orders - against the persons will - which may be seen as torture. Also indefinate and arbitrary sentences often skirt other legal processes such as parole.

While there is the bad or good aspect to indefinate sentences it can go both ways.

As for the death penalty being skirted - it really is questionable, except that they think this individual did not 'know' the nature of the act they did.

The death penalty IMO is much better than life imprisonment, I sense your upset - they didn't get the death penalty as there sentence wasn't harsh enough. I think the opposite way it is unfortunate they didn't get the death penalty as now they may be subject to harmful drug treatment again their will on an ongoing basis, as well as an indefinate setence, determined by when the doctors think it is safe for them to be out again, if ever, not the parole board.

There are lots of aspects to sentencing laws, and justice - and to go in depth would require a book or so to touch on it.


you can look at pages like this http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/08/the-intersectio.html

or try google..

but it's a sad story no matter what.

as for the cost of a death sentence, in Texas it costs 3x (three times) a 40 year life sentence (upwards of $2 million)....other countries systems may be less expensive like china's one bullet policy - that they bill to the family of the deceased - potentially while harvesting their organs.


http://www.ub.es/penal/historia/PdeM/costs2.html

Answer 3

What is it you do not understand here? Let us peel out the skin of your questions: the person is describe by the court as handicapped? Handicapped in my own version is one who lost one of his legs or arms. If by your own description of the person he does not know which is right from wrong then he is definitely not HANDICAPPED but mentally deranged. He should be place in a mental institution not in jail. But since the jail facilities now a days has rooms for mentally incapacitated individual they are place there to serve his/her terms. Once of course, proven in court he is mentally crazy.

Answer 4

Actually, the "law" you are talking about is not a law that was "passed" at all. The rule of law comes from a case called Atkins v. Virginia. In Atkins, the United States Supreme Court ruled it was cruel and unusual punishment (a violation of the 8th Amendment to the US constitution) to execute someone who is mentally retarded. As this rule of law comes from the highest court in the land, it is now unconstitutional in every state (and in the federal courts as well) to execute someone who is mentally retarded. The standard for mental retardation is high (normally an IQ of 70 or less, onset before age 18, and severe adapative functioning deficits). Someone who is mentally ill or of low intelligence is not ineligible from execution. The Court reasoned that similar to someone who has not reached the age of 18 (they are not eligible for the death penalty either), a person who is mentally retarded is not as culpable as someone who is not retarded. However, being retarded does not preclude prosecution or imprisonment. A person in Florida, for instance, who is retarded and who is convicted of first degree murder will be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Answer 5

The man you are speaking of was convicted today. I think you're talking about Jessica Lunsford's murderer. She was actually 9 years old, not six...

and he is not mentally handicapped, and was sentenced to death. So I'm not sure what you're going on about. l

Answer 6

he did get the death penalty but chances are he won't make it to the execution because the other prisoners have there own justice for people like him

Answer 7

good lord how can a piece of reuseable rope cost so damn much
fair trial and a proper hanging is my motto