Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds to me like this person would be deemed incompetent when it comes to making legal decisions and would have a guardian to make the decisions for him even as an adult. If this is the case how could him pleading guilty hold up?
I am thinking the kid pleaded guilty and had no idea/will never understand what that means.
Sure - he did something wrong - but 100yrs in prison? Just to much.
That's how prison works... and he won't have to spend 100 years, probably more like 20-25. If he is guilty (which we know he is) then he has to be taken off the streets (out of the neighborhood) just like any other sex offender.
Under Texas law, it'll be 50 years....not 20-25....before he's eligible for parole. And most sex offenders don't get it the first time around.
Do you realize how low an IQ of 47 is? Sure...there are many mentally retarded people out there, but an IQ that low is very, very, very rare.
This is no different from finding two little 5-6 year olds playing "doctor." Would you put one of them in prison....let alone for 100 years. The legal system in this country is so broken it isn't funny. We have grown men who rape child after child walking free on the streets and here is a "child" with the IQ of a 2 year old sent to be raped for touching another little child. He won't even have the capacity to understand that what he did was a no-no .....or to understand being locked away in prison and painfully raped over and over again all of his life. Oh this is just too horrible to take. Please...please tell me that some legal action group or some judge with an actual conscience will do something to overturn this miscarriage of justice quickly.
I agree. Upon reading the story, I immediately thought of young children just being curious. Despite his physical age and appearance, he is a young child. To throw him to the wolves for 100 years for fondling a child is a very serious injustice. This sentence accomplishes nothing. He won't be better for it ~ in fact it seems 'cruel and unusual' to me. To spend the rest of his life in prison for this will be hell for him.
I'm not condoning what he did. He needs to be supervised; no doubt about that. His prison sentence won't make anything better for anyone. What a waste!
He deserves life in a mental institution but if that's not available then prison it will have to be. It's not like they're going to toss him out there for the men to rape over and over again and just laugh at him, they will put him either in a single cell or if they have it, then in an area where all the other retarded people are. That's how prison works... and he won't have to spend 100 years, probably more like 20-25. If he is guilty (which we know he is) then he has to be taken off the streets (out of the neighborhood) just like any other sex offender.
That's a nice scenario for a 1950's Warner Brothers movie.
Unfortunately he will be placed in gen pop, and being of no value as a soldier he will be made available as an object of both rape and assault.
If he ventures into the wrong area he will be stabbed and killed.
Even in the psychiatric ward he will also become the target of predators who have learned to play the system, if he's lucky someone will give him protection at the service of him being bartered out in order to repay debts.
His attorney is either incompetent, prejudiced, or on the take.
You AUTOMATICALLY enter a no guilty plea which places the burden of proof on the prosecution.
There's no way mens rea could have been established in order to prove criminal intent.
He would have to have been found not guilty by insanity or mental defect.
Unfortunately this town has a reputation and that reputation basically says, "we are going to fu@k the ni@@ers whenever we can, and we can cause we are the government.
Something else in texas you may not want to believe:
More. (http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060909dntexlongsentence.4908784.html - broken link)
Quote:
Pearson blames Hart's trial attorney, who had the burden of explaining Hart's disability to the judge and jury. That attorney, appointed by the court because Hart's family couldn't afford counsel, did not ask for special accommodations, such as a liaison who could help the defendant understand what was happening in court. Nor did he try to call witnesses who could testify to Hart's mental condition, Pearson said.
Clearly attorney incompetence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
