Airing dirty laundry. A bit of legal advice sought also

SubJeff on 29/3/2012 at 02:17

what you mean is i <strike>think</strike> <strike>though</strike> <strike>she said</strike> hope its legal

Sg3 on 29/3/2012 at 03:39

Ugly world. People like him get no end of hell. In the end, those in power don't really care if he did what he is accused of or not. They sleep fine at night either way--it doesn't bother them to inflict endless shit on the unfortunate. People are monsters, underneath whatever polish they may or may not wear, and they--and the universe-- are all too happy to keep the dysfunctional in the most miserable state possible.

SubJeff on 29/3/2012 at 07:02

What?

get out

june gloom on 29/3/2012 at 08:14

yeah i mean

what

i'm not too impressed with the track record of "the powers that be" the last couple thousand years, but

what

Renzatic on 29/3/2012 at 08:46

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

Cut the kid a little slack, I think 16's legal in Kentucky.

I think the general consensus in Kentucky is if you're old enough to go corn husking, you're old enough to breed.

CCCToad on 29/3/2012 at 12:37

Its a pity how much assholes some judges can be. We had a case from my high school (that made national news) where the judge convicted a high school football player of statutory rape. The case in question was an 18 year old who slept with a 16 year old girl.

SubJeff on 29/3/2012 at 13:50

What was the law in the state?

Sg3 on 29/3/2012 at 14:49

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

What?

I'll put it bluntly: it's deplorable to prosecute the mentally retarded as if they were mentally competent. What is this, the Middle Ages?

Also, the entire U.S. prison system needs huge reform (perhaps with something like Norway as a model), but that's a different point altogether.

demagogue on 29/3/2012 at 17:16

That's easy to say as a general thing, but the intersection of criminal law and mental disability is terribly convoluted, complicated, and confused once you actually get into the details of it. You have to really get specific, what's the disability that's making prosecution unfair... Is it when they aren't in "control" of their own will; is it that some "mental defect" caused the criminal action itself; is it that they don't understand the "wrongness" of their action (or they don't understand "wrongness" at all)... And even if you credibly answer that, it's very hard to apply it to actual cases. How do you really know a person wasn't in control of their will, or that a mental defect literally took control of their will and did the thing (whatever that even means), and what is it not to understand wrongness... is it that you don't understand the concept, or you don't have that nudge in your experience that stops you like normal people have. And how can you really check for any of these things when you don't have access to where it's all happening (the guy's mind), and at best can only get poor glimpses of it through interviews over long periods of time.

Edit: Anyway, looking at this case, this guy isn't giving any signs I can see that he's sociopathic, dangerously schizophrenic, or completely oblivious to morality... It's more like he's just developmentally way behind the curve. It looks like he could benefit from having help or some disciplined and secure place to live, since I don't know how well he could live on his own. But the other side of the coin is you don't want to over-stigmatize people so they can't lead as normal a life as possible. It's much healthier to try to treat people as normal as possible, and deal with the disabilities in a practical and flexible way, than push them into some "special" category like they're permanently sick (what happens when you institutionalize people), which can have the effect of sinking them into a fatalist hole where they sometimes cope even worse.