31 Aug 23
@mott-the-hoople saidThe problem is a church which shields its abusive priests from justice.
the problem is a justice system that is over 50 yrs late on delivering justice, not the mental fitness of the defendant.
31 Aug 23
@vivify saidThis is poor reasoning; even if a defendant decides not to take the stand, he still can assist in his own defense in many ways no one else can.
The victim in the article seems to be a minor based on the words "teenage boy". I didn't see the age mentioned but the victim is at least 15.
the idea that they can be competent to stand trial and defend themslves goes out the window, as do ideas about whether or not they are able to really be punished without it being considered cruel.
Suppose he became se ...[text shortened]... es" suspects rarely ever take the stand anyway and remain silent while their lawyers do the talking.
A trial.of someone completely incapable of a meaningful defense would be a farce.
@no1marauder saidA mentally challenged person can have a conservator file law suits on their behalf. Is such an action a "farce" to you since they are not capable of presenting any meaningful argument?
This is poor reasoning; even if a defendant decides not to take the stand, he still can assist in his own defense in many ways no one else can.
A trial.of someone completely incapable of a meaningful defense would be a farce.
If people not mentally fit to take legal action can still have someone do so on their behalf it stands to reason they can have someone present a legal defense on their behalf.
For the record: my mind in not made up on the issue; I just think there are valid arguments both for and against prosecuting people like the priest in the OP who has dementia.
31 Aug 23
@vivify saidNo, it doesn't "stand to reason" at all. That the legal system has seen fit to give those who are incapacitated a procedure to vindicate their interests, does not mean that it should allow them to face criminal punishments when they are utterly incapable of aiding their defense. For the link in your OP:
A mentally challenged person can have a conservator file law suits on their behalf. Is such an action a "farce" to you since they are not capable of presenting any meaningful argument?
If people not mentally fit to take legal action can still have someone do so on their behalf it stands to reason they can have someone present a legal defense on their behalf.
For the r ...[text shortened]... valid arguments both for and against prosecuting people like the priest in the OP who has dementia.
"Without being able to remember discussions, he could not participate with his lawyers in his defense, she said."
That, by the way, was the prosecution's expert.
What "valid reason" exists for putting on a trial which my end with the State imposing penal sanctions on a defendant when that defendant cannot mount any type of meaningful defense?
@no1marauder saidThe question is not whether the judge's actions had legal merit; the issue whether such an action is just or not.
"Without being able to remember discussions, he could not participate with his lawyers in his defense, she said."
That, by the way, was the prosecution's expert.
What "valid reason" exists for putting on a trial which my end with the State imposing penal sanctions on a defendant when that defendant cannot mount any type of meaningful defense?
The fact that a man who likely committed a crime while his mind was in tact may never be brought to justice. But as already mentioned, lawyers take care of the "meaningful defense".
31 Aug 23
@vivify saidThat's not possible when the defendant can't tell the lawyers anything at all about the alleged crime or facts which may indicate his innocence. The lawyers weren't there; they rely on the defendant for any type of factual information which may aid the defense. Pretty much the first thing a criminal defense lawyer asks his client is "Tell me what happened". If they have no ability to answer that question, how do you expect the lawyer to mount a "meaningful defense"?
The question is not whether the judge's actions had legal merit; the issue whether such an action is just or not.
What "valid reason" exists for putting on a trial which my end with the State imposing penal sanctions on a defendant when that defendant cannot mount any type of meaningful defense?
The fact that a man who likely committed a crime while his min ...[text shortened]... ver be brought to justice. But as already mentioned, lawyers take care of the "meaningful defense".
31 Aug 23
@vivify saidIt would be wrong to keep someone with severe dementia or dementia plus a bunch of physical ailments in prison, in my opinion. I would imagine this also varies state to state...
The victim in the article seems to be a minor based on the words "teenage boy". I didn't see the age mentioned but the victim is at least 15.
the idea that they can be competent to stand trial and defend themslves goes out the window, as do ideas about whether or not they are able to really be punished without it being considered cruel.
Suppose he became se ...[text shortened]... es" suspects rarely ever take the stand anyway and remain silent while their lawyers do the talking.
Of course, the lawyer does the talking... But what does it mean if you can't get a clear idea of even what your defense wants, or a clear recounting of events from your client, due to their advanced age and mental state..?
What he may or may not have done in the 1970s, nearly half a century ago, is certainly relevant.... And maybe it would be appropriate to go ahead with some sort of trial if it was the case that we believed it was possible to confine or institutionalize him in an appropriate way. But if the guy is already incapable of caring for himself and is barely lucid for a 30-40 minutes a day, it can be argued that not only can he not stand trial, but there really is no state facility to put him in, nor is there anything which can be done to punish him that wouldn't be cruel or unusual...
31 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidThe same goes for filing lawsuits on that client's behalf.
That's not possible when the defendant can't tell the lawyers anything at all about the alleged crime or facts which may indicate his innocence. The lawyers weren't there; they rely on the defendant for any type of factual information which may aid the defense. Pretty much the first thing a criminal defense lawyer asks his client is "Tell me what happened". If they have no ability to answer that question, how do you expect the lawyer to mount a "meaningful defense"?
The plaintiff has no ability to answer when a lawyer asks "tell me what happened". How do you expect that lawyer to present a meaningful case?
Yet somehow the courts found a way. Perhaps they can do the same for cases like that priest in the OP.
01 Sep 23
@moonbus saidYes, moonbus, yes. Sad but very true.
The problem is a church which shields its abusive priests from justice.
01 Sep 23
@no1marauder said - "A trial.of someone completely incapable of a meaningful defense would be a farce."
What do you think of the practice of trial in absentia? Several countries do it.
01 Sep 23
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidGood point. That happens in the U.S. as well.
@no1marauder said - "A trial.of someone completely incapable of a meaningful defense would be a farce."
What do you think of the practice of trial in absentia? Several countries do it.
01 Sep 23
@mott-the-hoople saidFirst of all, I’m not a liberal. Hoe many times do you need a rightious spanking over this?
with you libs its always treat the accused with kids gloves, never any thought is given to the victims.
As to your point: take an extreme example, say a mentally handicapped person who during the murder was having a psychotic episode (so no grasp of reality) and by the time of trial was suffering from dementia (so no real grasp of history).
What sort of justice is being done by prosecuting some such person?
Are the victims really being served any kind of justice?
Do you think if a runaway bull tramples someone to death in a panicked escape, that the bull should be put on trial? Would that serve actual justice? Will it bring back the dead? Will the bull comprehend why it’s being punished?
Of a 5 year old kills it’s mum in a hissy fit. Do you think putting it on trial is justified?
Do you think the victim will be happy about that? Can justice actually be served?
It’s not about not caring for the victim, it’s about what’s an appropriate response which means something or can actually change something.
Funnily enough, when women call out men on their behaviour, you don’t seem so eager to defend the victims. What’s that all about?
01 Sep 23
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidIf he were capable if present, that is different to being incapable even if present. Especially if the reason he is absent is to avoid prosecution.
@no1marauder said - "A trial.of someone completely incapable of a meaningful defense would be a farce."
What do you think of the practice of trial in absentia? Several countries do it.