redfox Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 the bickering is poor guys give it a rest If a person kills another but is not "responsible" because of an established illness what do we as a society do ? We have a responsibility to the deceased to make sure that the person is held to account for the actions - but what then? We read often of those very ill people who kill randomly or those who love them and have cared for them for all of their lives - and that scenario presents the most tragic of all. I suspect its a topic that should be widened into how should we take care of the mentally ill in society - there are those who are dangerous and they will be detained - what about those who are not so clearly dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 If this descends further into bickering i will be happy to issue bans to those indulging themselves. discuss the topic civilly please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digglydog Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I want to ask a couple of controversial questions, and they are geniune questions I'm not trolling or anything. Are adults that are mentally retarded(for want of a better word) or have a mental age of less than 16, barred from having sex? and is the("normal" sound-minded) person they have sex with liable to be prosecuted? People who have a learning disability are not barred from having sex . However, if they lack capacity to understand what they are doing or to give consent , then the person they are having sex with could be deemed to be comitting an offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 They would get a reprimand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 If they have reached the age of criminal responsibility ie, ten then they are responsible. They get treated the same as everyone else of the same age, that's why there are various ages that you are subsequently allowed to do something. The mental health issues of course provide for a defence of any charge and if it's as severe as is mentioned then it will be an absolute defence. It has to be this way though to stop someone playing the system along and pretending to have an issue. It also allows for those who may recover to rejoin society when they are well enough and enjoy the benefits and responsibility of an adult life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digglydog Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 They would get a reprimand. If you are referring to my post then you could be mistaken. Sex with someone who lacks the capacity to consent can and probably would be, viewed as rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Say you have a daughter aged 17 who is mentally aged only around 6 and they break the law. How are they/should they be dealt with? As an adult or as a child? Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind. If the defendant can be shown to be so mentally impaired as to have less chance of forming a malicious intent than one below the age of criminal responsibility a trial would be most unlikely. Mental Health Proceedings infinitely more probable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The issue of age and mental capacity should not be confused. If the offence is serious then there will be a trial. It takes two stages. There is a trial heard by a judge alone who determines as a matter of law if the defendant is "unfit". It is often agreed evidence with two psychiatrists both of the same view. There is then a trial as to whether the defendant committed/did the act - a jury determine that factual issue. If the judge decides the defendant is unfit then the sentence (in the event the jury find the act was committed by the defendant) will involve an order under the mental health act - that the person be detained in a hospital and it will either be with a restriction as to release or not. The suggestion of a reprimand is simply wrong - how do you reprimand a person who is mentally ill for a serious offence ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeApe Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If she is an adult she is treated as one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 An adult who does not have the ability to function as we would ordinarily expect as an adult ? That goes back to the old asylums which I had thought we had moved on from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.