PDA

View Full Version : Texas Teenager (IQ 47) gets 100 Years in Prison


footstepsfrom#27
06-13-2009, 10:10 PM
Cutler...Marshall...Bowlen...it's all getting old eh? Here's something new to tear each other apart with...enjoy; ;D

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-xK5XuCo9cQibH4qrscUG2t-KKgD98O27RG0

Teen with 47 IQ gets 100 years for child sex abuse

PARIS, Texas (AP) A teenager who has profound mental disabilities was sentenced to 100 years in prison after pleading guilty to charges in a sex abuse case involving his 6-year-old neighbor.

Aaron Hart, 18, of Paris, was arrested and charged after a neighbor found him fondling her stepson in September. The teen pleaded guilty to five counts, including aggravated sexual assault and indecency by contact, and a jury decided his punishment.

Lamar County Judge Eric Clifford decided to stack the sentences against Hart after jurors settled on two five-year terms and three 30-year terms, The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday. The judge said neither he nor jurors liked the idea of prison for Hart but they felt there was no other option.

"In the state of Texas, there isn't a whole lot you can do with somebody like him," Clifford said.

Hart has an IQ of 47 and was diagnosed as mentally disabled as a child. He never learned to read or write and speaks unsteadily.

Despite being a target of bullies, he was courteous, well-behaved and earned money by doing chores for neighbors, supporters said. His parents say he'd never acted out sexually.

"He couldn't understand the seriousness of what he did," said his father, Robert Hart. "I never dreamed they would think about sending him to prison. When they said 100 years it was terror, pure terror, to me."

Jurors said they sent the judge notes during deliberations in February, asking about alternatives to prison, but didn't get a clear answer. They believed the judge would order concurrent sentences, jurors said.

District Attorney Gary Young said he sympathized with Hart's situation but stands by his decision to prosecute on five counts. Prosecutors commonly pursue several charges for a single incident to see which the jury will support.

Young said a diversion program was not an option since the law doesn't allow that for serious felonies.

"I hope people will remember he committed a violent sexual crime against a little boy," he said.

Hart's appellate attorney, David Pearson, said the court-appointed doctor did the bare minimum to assess competency and ran tests geared for mental illness, not mental retardation.

He said an appeal will be filed.

BroncoDoug
06-13-2009, 10:17 PM
oh good lord... to not even look into any other type of treatment is just plain not doing your job

EDIT: this is somehow McDaniels fault right?

footstepsfrom#27
06-13-2009, 10:24 PM
oh good lord... to not even look into any other type of treatment is just plain not doing your job

EDIT: this is somehow McDaniels fault right?
Good start. :stirstir:

DHallblows
06-13-2009, 11:18 PM
Oooooooh Texas, you're so dumb...

Punisher
06-13-2009, 11:30 PM
100 years in prison?!
Here's an IQ question.

If Aaron Hart does 805 and a half push ups a day in Prison,how many will he do in 100 years?

TheReverend
06-13-2009, 11:38 PM
IQ 47? So he's 20 ahead of Punisher :) Give him the chair.

UberBroncoMan
06-13-2009, 11:40 PM
To be honest I don't think the kid deserves prison. I think he should go into a mental ward or something, he's not a vicious killer or anything. He's just really ****ing messed up.

Punisher
06-13-2009, 11:43 PM
IQ 47? So he's 20 ahead of Punisher :) Give him the chair.

Hell No at least I'm smart enough, to know not to rape a little boy what a dumb ass.Just rape a Chicken instead dumb people these days ::)

TheReverend
06-13-2009, 11:43 PM
Seriously though, 47 is in the "moderate retardation" category.

Isn't this picked up by amniocentesis (spelling?) ?

I'm not saying retarded people don't deserve the gift of life, but it has to be such a toll on the parents and families that they should be very certain that they're capable of undertaking that responsibility before deciding to have it.

This apparently wasn't one of those cases and now some poor little girl will have her life ruined by trauma.

Edit: Oh **** it was a little boy. Can't wait for that shooting spree when this angry at the world kid grows up and finds a future gun (possibly laser)

TheReverend
06-13-2009, 11:48 PM
To be honest I don't think the kid deserves prison. I think he should go into a mental ward or something, he's not a vicious killer or anything. He's just really ****ing messed up.

I don't think he deserves prison either.

Of Mice and Men his ass:

http://www.artscc.org/iron/pictures/mm/shoot.jpg

footstepsfrom#27
06-13-2009, 11:52 PM
IQ 47? So he's 20 ahead of Punisher :) Give him the chair.
And still 20 behind Bush, whose a racist. :stirstir: Couldn't they just taser him?

epicSocialism4tw
06-14-2009, 12:05 AM
Cutler...Marshall...Bowlen...it's all getting old eh? Here's something new to tear each other apart with...enjoy; ;D

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-xK5XuCo9cQibH4qrscUG2t-KKgD98O27RG0

Teen with 47 IQ gets 100 years for child sex abuse

PARIS, Texas (AP) A teenager who has profound mental disabilities was sentenced to 100 years in prison after pleading guilty to charges in a sex abuse case involving his 6-year-old neighbor.

Aaron Hart, 18, of Paris, was arrested and charged after a neighbor found him fondling her stepson in September. The teen pleaded guilty to five counts, including aggravated sexual assault and indecency by contact, and a jury decided his punishment.

Lamar County Judge Eric Clifford decided to stack the sentences against Hart after jurors settled on two five-year terms and three 30-year terms, The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday. The judge said neither he nor jurors liked the idea of prison for Hart but they felt there was no other option.

"In the state of Texas, there isn't a whole lot you can do with somebody like him," Clifford said.

Hart has an IQ of 47 and was diagnosed as mentally disabled as a child. He never learned to read or write and speaks unsteadily.

Despite being a target of bullies, he was courteous, well-behaved and earned money by doing chores for neighbors, supporters said. His parents say he'd never acted out sexually.

"He couldn't understand the seriousness of what he did," said his father, Robert Hart. "I never dreamed they would think about sending him to prison. When they said 100 years it was terror, pure terror, to me."

Jurors said they sent the judge notes during deliberations in February, asking about alternatives to prison, but didn't get a clear answer. They believed the judge would order concurrent sentences, jurors said.

District Attorney Gary Young said he sympathized with Hart's situation but stands by his decision to prosecute on five counts. Prosecutors commonly pursue several charges for a single incident to see which the jury will support.

Young said a diversion program was not an option since the law doesn't allow that for serious felonies.

"I hope people will remember he committed a violent sexual crime against a little boy," he said.

Hart's appellate attorney, David Pearson, said the court-appointed doctor did the bare minimum to assess competency and ran tests geared for mental illness, not mental retardation.

He said an appeal will be filed.


It is common for mentally retarded individuals to be unable to control their libido.

This case will probably be overturned. Very bad judgment there...exceptionally inappropriate verdict and sentance. The mentally handicapped fellow will not be rehabilitated in prison.

Pseudofool
06-14-2009, 12:49 AM
I say cut funding for special ed programs and just set them loose. What can happen, right?

~Crash~
06-14-2009, 08:07 AM
I worked with these types and it is way simpler to sterilize them and keep them from doing this kind of thing again .

They gave this sentence problay to set up the choice sterilize or the time .

Popps what the sam hell are you talking about ?

Atlas
06-14-2009, 08:22 AM
Cutler...Marshall...Bowlen...it's all getting old eh? Here's something new to tear each other apart with...enjoy; ;D

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-xK5XuCo9cQibH4qrscUG2t-KKgD98O27RG0

Teen with 47 IQ gets 100 years for child sex abuse

PARIS, Texas (AP) A teenager who has profound mental disabilities was sentenced to 100 years in prison after pleading guilty to charges in a sex abuse case involving his 6-year-old neighbor.

Aaron Hart, 18, of Paris, was arrested and charged after a neighbor found him fondling her stepson in September. The teen pleaded guilty to five counts, including aggravated sexual assault and indecency by contact, and a jury decided his punishment.

Lamar County Judge Eric Clifford decided to stack the sentences against Hart after jurors settled on two five-year terms and three 30-year terms, The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday. The judge said neither he nor jurors liked the idea of prison for Hart but they felt there was no other option.

"In the state of Texas, there isn't a whole lot you can do with somebody like him," Clifford said.

Hart has an IQ of 47 and was diagnosed as mentally disabled as a child. He never learned to read or write and speaks unsteadily.

Despite being a target of bullies, he was courteous, well-behaved and earned money by doing chores for neighbors, supporters said. His parents say he'd never acted out sexually.

"He couldn't understand the seriousness of what he did," said his father, Robert Hart. "I never dreamed they would think about sending him to prison. When they said 100 years it was terror, pure terror, to me."

Jurors said they sent the judge notes during deliberations in February, asking about alternatives to prison, but didn't get a clear answer. They believed the judge would order concurrent sentences, jurors said.

District Attorney Gary Young said he sympathized with Hart's situation but stands by his decision to prosecute on five counts. Prosecutors commonly pursue several charges for a single incident to see which the jury will support.

Young said a diversion program was not an option since the law doesn't allow that for serious felonies.

"I hope people will remember he committed a violent sexual crime against a little boy," he said.

Hart's appellate attorney, David Pearson, said the court-appointed doctor did the bare minimum to assess competency and ran tests geared for mental illness, not mental retardation.

He said an appeal will be filed.

I work at Mexia State School in Texas. It's a place for Mentally Retarded individuals. He should be sent here, not prison.

http://www.dads.state.tx.us/services/stateschools/mexia.html

Bronx33
06-14-2009, 08:42 AM
The kid shouldn't be sent to prison they are in no way equipped to handle his special needs just a flat stupid decision by an idiot judge..

~Crash~
06-14-2009, 08:55 AM
The kid shouldn't be sent to prison they are in no way equipped to handle his special needs just a flat stupid decision by an idiot judge..

he will not go they probably will sterilize him and let him go back with his parents . This was a bad wright up and I am sure it is not in depth .

Spider
06-14-2009, 08:55 AM
man .......... Texicans need to succeed ......... hell even in Wyoming , they have resources to help someone out like this kid . It is Called Colorado...........

~Crash~
06-14-2009, 09:02 AM
man .......... Texicans need to succeed ......... hell even in Wyoming , they have resources to help someone out like this kid . It is Called Colorado...........


If they succeed I wonder if there will be 17 Zars to look over what companies can and can not do . Russian style ?!?!!?:welcome:

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 10:00 AM
he will not go they probably will stylize him and let him go back with his parents .
Would that help? ;D

Rock Chalk
06-14-2009, 10:12 AM
man .......... Texicans need to succeed ......... hell even in Wyoming , they have resources to help someone out like this kid . It is Called Colorado...........

Ceceed is the word you are looking for moron.

And Texas can not ceceed.

And Texas is certainly not the only state that has some moronic judgements passed down upon individuals. Every state in the union has their share of idiocy, Wyoming included.

ohiobronco2
06-14-2009, 10:35 AM
Would that help? ;D

Makeover. LOL

crawdad
06-14-2009, 10:49 AM
Ceceed is the word you are looking for moron.



It is secede. Come on Alex

bombay
06-14-2009, 11:00 AM
Good God.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 11:03 AM
It is secede. Come on Alex
:thumbs: Love it when "moron" is followed by a spelling error. How tough is it to check? ???

ohiobronco2
06-14-2009, 11:08 AM
It is secede. Come on Alex

:spit: LOL

BabyTO
06-14-2009, 11:10 AM
Damn rednecks. Somebody should have thought him that its only legal in Texas to mess with children if they're your siblings.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/members/arguy1973-89923-albums-redneck-dogs-pic6098-hillbilly-dogs.jpg

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 11:17 AM
The kid shouldn't be sent to prison they are in no way equipped to handle his special needs just a flat stupid decision by an idiot judge..

The kid was convicted of a sex assault that almost certainly carried mandatory sentencing, the judge was following the law and had no choice. Complain about the legislature for not giving him an option if you want, but the judge was doing his job.

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 11:19 AM
oh good lord... to not even look into any other type of treatment is just plain not doing your job


Did you read the article? A diversionary program is not an option on serious felony charges.

Yep, the DA should have looked into treatment options that were not available under the law.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 11:21 AM
The kid was convicted of a sex assault that almost certainly carried mandatory sentencing, the judge was following the law and had no choice. Complain about the legislature for not giving him an option if you want, but the judge was doing his job.
If that's true then why are there so many convicted sex offenders around here living free and searchable by address on the internet?

Paris Texas has a long history of odd judicial decisions...see Shaquanda Cotton. :stirstir:

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 11:23 AM
Did you read the article? A diversionary program is not an option on serious felony charges.

Yep, the DA should have looked into treatment options that were not available under the law.
This particular DA has a history of questionable ethics and being less than truthful...

~Crash~
06-14-2009, 11:31 AM
Would that help? ;D

lol that might help him in his cause ....Hilarious!

~Crash~
06-14-2009, 11:32 AM
Damn rednecks. Somebody should have thought him that its only legal in Texas to mess with children if they're your siblings.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/members/arguy1973-89923-albums-redneck-dogs-pic6098-hillbilly-dogs.jpg

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 11:33 AM
If that's true then why are there so many convicted sex offenders around here living free and searchable by address on the internet?

This kid went to trial and was convicted of a SAC count. You're making a blanket statement about other SOs when you have no idea what they were charged with, what penalties those charges carried, and if they plead out to a lessor or not. You don't have near enough information to even make those comparisons at this time.

DenverBrit
06-14-2009, 11:34 AM
The reason the poor kid is going to prison instead of getting treatment is simple.

An IQ of 47 isn't considered a 'disability' in Texas. ;D

~Crash~
06-14-2009, 11:38 AM
The reason the poor kid is going to prison instead of getting treatment is simple.

An IQ of 47 isn't considered a 'disability' in Texas. ;D

You guys are mean as hell for being on a sunday ... go to church ...:pray:

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 11:38 AM
This particular DA has a history of questionable ethics and being less than truthful...

Again, this kid was convicted of a sex assault on a child. I'm not going to pretend I know Texas sentencing law, but states don't **** around with penalties on charges like that. In Colorado the kid would have received an indeterminate sentence.

You're throwing crap out there callling him less than truthful, when any newspaper reporter in Texas can look up their statutes to verify the penalty ranges on a charge like that. So either he's telling the truth, and the author verified it, or he's lying and he's not being called on it in the article because the author didn't do his job.

Why don't you actually do a little leg work here and look it up yourself to see if he's telling the truth?

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 11:43 AM
This kid went to trial and was convicted of a SAC count. You're making a blanket statement about other SOs when you have no idea what they were charged with, what penalties those charges carried, and if they plead out to a lessor or not. You don't have near enough information to even make those comparisons at this time.
Actually I made no assumptions, I merely asked you a question. If no alternative treatment is available...why are there so many convincted sex offenders running around?

BTW...you're making a few assumptions yourself...one being that I have no idea what he was charged with. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that maybe since the story says he was charged with "aggravated sexual assault and indecency by contact" that I at least know two of his charges.

What you really fail to see, is that the DA had discretion on whether or not he brought charges in the first place, and that decision should be based on all the evidence at his disposal...maybe this might be something to consider:

Hart's appellate attorney, David Pearson, said the court-appointed doctor did the bare minimum to assess competency and ran tests geared for mental illness, not mental retardation.

As I noted before...the Paris Texas criminal court has a long and questionable history...I believe they are still under investigation by the Justice Department over the Shaquanda Cotton fiasco.

~Crash~
06-14-2009, 11:43 AM
Again, this kid was convicted of a sex assault on a child. I'm not going to pretend I know Texas sentencing law, but states don't **** around with penalties on charges like that. In Colorado the kid would have received an indeterminate sentence.

You're throwing crap out there calling him less than truthful, when any newspaper reporter in Texas can look up their statutes to verify the penalty ranges on a charge like that. So either he's telling the truth, and the author verified it, or he's lying and he's not being called on it in the article because the author didn't do his job.

Why don't you actually do a little leg work here and look it up yourself to see if he's telling the truth?

Some were some how there is something being left out of the article I would almost bet on it . they will not send a child into prison if they really send a child to prison I hope a pleg on that prosecutor that is for sure.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 11:48 AM
Again, this kid was convicted of a sex assault on a child. I'm not going to pretend I know Texas sentencing law, but states don't **** around with penalties on charges like that. In Colorado the kid would have received an indeterminate sentence.

You're throwing crap out there callling him less than truthful, when any newspaper reporter in Texas can look up their statutes to verify the penalty ranges on a charge like that. So either he's telling the truth, and the author verified it, or he's lying and he's not being called on it in the article because the author didn't do his job.

Why don't you actually do a little leg work here and look it up yourself to see if he's telling the truth?
Maybe I will. But in actuality, all I've done is give you a brief lesson on this particular jurisdictional history...it's a fact that the Paris DA and the Paris judicial system have recently come under fire for other incidents and I believe are currently under investigation by the Justice Department.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 11:52 AM
Some were some how there is something being left out of the article I would almost bet on it . they will not send a child into prison if they really send a child to prison I hope a pleg on that prosecutor that is for sure.
He's not a child, he's 18...but has the mind of a child. In any case...this is the same court that sent 14 year old Shawanda Cotton...a girl with ADHD...to prison for over a year for pushing a teachers aid at school. Yes...they will send a child to prison.

EDIT: Shaquanda Cotton was not sentenced to 1 year, she was sentenced to SEVEN YEARS in prison, but released after a llttle over one year after the story went public and the Justice Department turned attention to Paris. Here's a link to other Paris TX problems: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:L81DELK_Tt0J:www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/saturday/chi-paris-storygallery,0,7201431.storygallery+paris+AND+texa s+AND+court+AND+%22justice+department%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

gunns
06-14-2009, 11:52 AM
They don't even give that kind of sentence to "normal" men who rape, molest.
They should though.

Unbelievable. Send the kid to a state mental hospital. And sorry, not for a short time, if someone out here isn't keeping an eye on him.

epicSocialism4tw
06-14-2009, 11:55 AM
The reason the poor kid is going to prison instead of getting treatment is simple.

An IQ of 47 isn't considered a 'disability' in Texas. ;D

What does that say for California? ;D

Those idiots probably cant afford to prosecute a case like this right now! :rofl:

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 11:55 AM
Actually I made no assumptions, I merely asked you a question. If no alternative treatment is available...why are there so many convincted sex offenders running around?

BTW...you're making a few assumptions yourself...one being that I have no idea what he was charged with. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that maybe since the story says he was charged with "aggravated sexual assault and indecency by contact" that I at least know two of his charges.

What you really fail to see, is that the DA had discretion on whether or not he brought charges in the first place, and that decision should be based on all the evidence at his disposal...maybe this might be something to consider:

Hart's appellate attorney, David Pearson, said the court-appointed doctor did the bare minimum to assess competency and ran tests geared for mental illness, not mental retardation.

As I noted before...the Paris Texas criminal court has a long and questionable history...I believe they are still under investigation by the Justice Department over the Shawanda Cotton fiasco.

First, learn to read a little closer before you start typing. I said you have no idea what those other SOs in the community were charged with, I did not say you have no idea what this kid was charged with. This kid was charged with an incredibly serious crime, even for a sex offense. You do not know what the others who are out in the community were charged with, you don't know the strength of those particular case, etc.

Wow, DAs bring charges? No ****. Considering I'm a DA, I never would have known something like that. What you fail to see is that they're required by law to bring charges that they believe they can prove at trial. You do not take things like competency into that equation because the filing decision is made before someone is sent off to have comp tests even ran.

His appellate attorney, which would be someone different than defended him at trial. The DA's office had a Defendant that an expert deemed competent for trial, so they proceeded like they should have because it's their job. Blame the kid's first attorney if he was unable to see that the proper tests were not given.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 11:57 AM
They don't even give that kind of sentence to "normal" men who rape, molest.
Exactly my point...and if you read the article the DA had the option on what, if any charges to file and the judge also had the option to stack or not stack sentences. This is a court that's shown in the past it's out of control. Now we have a new controversy.

spdirty
06-14-2009, 11:57 AM
100 years in prison?!
Here's an IQ question.

If Aaron Hart does 805 and a half push ups a day in Prison,how many will he do in 100 years?

29,400,750

TheReverend
06-14-2009, 12:01 PM
29,400,750

Fail.

It was a pretty straight forward multiplication question with only one extremely mild twist.

Leap-years.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 12:04 PM
First, learn to read a little closer before you start typing. I said you have no idea what those other SOs in the community were charged with, I did not say you have no idea what this kid was charged with. This kid was charged with an incredibly serious crime, even for a sex offense. You do not know what the others who are out in the community were charged with, you don't know the strength of those particular case, etc.
Actually I do.
Wow, DAs bring charges? No ****. Considering I'm a DA, I never would have known something like that. What you fail to see is that they're required by law to bring charges that they believe they can prove at trial. You do not take things like competency into that equation because the filing decision is made before someone is sent off to have comp tests even ran.
This case is going to be appealed and if it's true that they failed to administer a test for mental retardation, I think it will be overturned. And it's not true that the DA has to file charges before he considers all the facts, which is what you're trying to tell me.
His appellate attorney, which would be someone different than defended him at trial. The DA's office had a Defendant that an expert deemed competent for trial, so they proceeded like they should have because it's their job. Blame the kid's first attorney if he was unable to see that the proper tests were not given.
Actually I blame the system itself...in this case this particular jurisdiction, which as I said, has a shady history in the past.

Rohirrim
06-14-2009, 12:05 PM
It's Texas. What do you expect?

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 12:14 PM
Actually I do.

Really? You know how strong/weak each of their particular cases were? How involved the victim was and what their input was with regards to sentencing?

This case is going to be appealed and if it's true that they failed to administer a test for mental retardation, I think it will be overturned. And it's not true that the DA has to file charges before he considers all the facts, which is what you're trying to tell me.

There's going to be a jurisdictional time limit within which a DA's office has to file charges or dismiss. The competency testing takes awhile to complete, longer than they'll have to sit on charges and wait. They'll take things like self-defense and whether or not there are even enough facts to prove the case into account, but they're not going to make their own competency determination because they're not qualified to make it. That's for a professional to make.

Karenin
06-14-2009, 01:15 PM
lol @ people saying that a child molester shouldn't go to prison. I'm sure if your children got raped by a mental midget, you'd be saying he should just get put in a mental hospital. Oh wait, you'd probably want him to be in prison for life. ****ing morons.

Punisher
06-14-2009, 01:18 PM
Fail.

It was a pretty straight forward multiplication question with only one extremely mild twist.

Leap-years.

WINNER

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/79/216516964_40b66d5e15.jpg?v=0

TheReverend
06-14-2009, 01:27 PM
Yay, I passed 3rd grade!

:)

RMT
06-14-2009, 01:29 PM
a 47 IQ in texas is considered "average intelligence"

BabyTO
06-14-2009, 01:32 PM
lol @ people saying that a child molester shouldn't go to prison. I'm sure if your children got raped by a mental midget, you'd be saying he should just get put in a mental hospital. Oh wait, you'd probably want him to be in prison for life. ****ing morons.

Nobody got "raped" you imbecile. And it's not a question of "yeah but if it were your kid and somebody would have done this to your kid...". Its a question of how you're gonna "repair" this kid. Jail is not gonna help him at all. He'll sit there for 100 years and then die. The kid needs treatment. This is like giving a cancer patient an aspirin. Retarded.

And i like how even after PLEADING GUILTY the kid still got a 100 years. What the hell was the point of pleading guilty? Would they have given him 200 years instead had he not commented? If this stands (which it probably wont) he's gonna die behind bars regardless so what was the point of pleading guilty? What a ****ty deal.

Karenin
06-14-2009, 01:37 PM
He'll sit there for 100 years and then die.

good.

he's gonna die behind bars

good.


Do you have kids? If they got raped by a retard would you want him to be rehabilitated? Or would you want him to rot in prison?

Disgusting that you sympathize with child molesters. Kill yourself, seriously.

DHallblows
06-14-2009, 01:51 PM
good.



good.


Do you have kids? If they got raped by a retard would you want him to be rehabilitated? Or would you want him to rot in prison?

Disgusting that you sympathize with child molesters. Kill yourself, seriously.

Are you an idiot or just play one on the internet?

Karenin
06-14-2009, 01:52 PM
Post less.

DHallblows
06-14-2009, 01:58 PM
Ahh, there's that sophisticated wit everyone here is missing out on by you lurking...

BabyTO
06-14-2009, 01:58 PM
Nobody got raped, once again. Yes what he did was obviously wrong and he should be somewhere where he doesn't have access to children etc. since he doesn't seem to understand that what he's doing is wrong. But sending him to jail is not gonna help him or anybody. It's just a waste of money.

Karenin
06-14-2009, 01:58 PM
Ahh, there's that sophisticated wit everyone here is missing out on by you lurking...

Seriously, stop posting, you ****ing suck.

Karenin
06-14-2009, 02:00 PM
But sending him to jail is not gonna help him or anybody.

Except for all the other 6 year olds he'd end up raping if he wasn't put in jail.

DHallblows
06-14-2009, 02:06 PM
Seriously, stop posting, you ****ing suck.

Tell me about it. I should just lurk and only post when I feel like being a douchebag to the entire board :thumbsup: My bad...

Except for all the other 6 year olds he'd end up raping if he wasn't put in jail.

And this is the proof. Just making up **** trying to get a reaction out of people...
I'm glad there are users like you to set the example of the quality of posting I should strive for.

Karenin
06-14-2009, 02:09 PM
Old 06-14-2009, 02:06 PM Remove user from ignore list DHallblows This message is hidden because DHallblows is on your ignore list. Ahhhh... much better.

BabyTO
06-14-2009, 02:22 PM
Do you have kids? If they got raped by a retard would you want him to be rehabilitated? Or would you want him to rot in prison?

Theres a flip side to that coin. Lets say you have a child (mentally disabled) but of course you love him. One day you find out what he did and you know exactly he didn't know what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong. Should your child spend the rest of his life in jail for that? Knowing you for this short time you'll probably say yes just to strengthen your own argument but we all know the truth. Of course you wouldnt want him to go to jail for this.

TheReverend
06-14-2009, 02:26 PM
Theres a flip side to that coin. Lets say you have a child (mentally disabled) but of course you love him. One day you find out what he did and you know exactly he didn't know what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong. Should your child spend the rest of his life in jail for that? Knowing you for this short time you'll probably say yes just to strengthen your own argument but we all know the truth. Of course you wouldnt want him to go to jail for this.

You're looking at this wrong.

First off, having a disabled kid isn't an excuse for improper parental supervision. It's on them.

Secondly, what about the parents of the six year old? He didn't do anything wrong and thanks to this situation, his life is changed for the worse forever.

BabyTO
06-14-2009, 02:28 PM
Except for all the other 6 year olds he'd end up raping if he wasn't put in jail.
So is that your only argument? Then you'd agree that he should be treated by doctors in a mental institution. He's not gonna have any access to kids there. So in terms of security theres no difference bewteen jail or mental institution.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 02:31 PM
Really? You know how strong/weak each of their particular cases were? How involved the victim was and what their input was with regards to sentencing?
I worked in the Texas mental health system for 15 years, and among other things, did case management of all kinds, including those for court appointed cases, such as those enrolled in sexual addictions and treatment programs, so yes...I've seen quite a few confidential files of people convicted of criminal sexual offenses...one of the worst jobs around BTW.
There's going to be a jurisdictional time limit within which a DA's office has to file charges or dismiss. The competency testing takes awhile to complete, longer than they'll have to sit on charges and wait.
Nonsence.

First of all, the prosecutor himself ALREADY knows this guy is mentally retarded and the story makes it clear not only that he does, but that it wasn't that they "didn't have time to complete testing", as you suggest, but rather they did the WRONG testing...so clearly they DID take time to test but they screwed up. I also happen to know that testing for mental retardation does not take the time you suggest, and obviously if it did, NO Texas court would ever be able to do the testing nor to considering mental defect as a defense...which is what mental retardation is...mental defect

Title 2, Section 8.01(a) of the Texas Penal Code says it's an affirmative defense to prosecution if the individual commiting the crime is judged to have a "mental disease or defect", so clearly the court expects this defense to be legitimately presented and obviously considered by prosecutors BEFORE filing cases. Section 22.04(c) describes an individual as "disabled" if he's over 14 years old and "by reason...of mental disease or defect...is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter or medical care for himself." In other words...the same terminology offered to remove consent, exists for an affirmative defense as well...one the prosecutor in this case failed to consider if the story is accurate.

The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities describes the impact of mental retardation and when the determination must be made in court proceedings to determine competency: http://www.txddc.state.tx.us/public_policy/position/competency.asp

A diagnosis of mental retardation or mental illness does not automatically mean a person is incompetent to stand trial. However, the presence of mental retardation raises so many possibilities of miscommunication, misperceptions and an inadequate defense, that people with mental retardation found competent to stand trial must not be subject to the death penalty. Further, the determination of mental retardation must be made by the court in a proceeding that occurs prior to the onset of a trial.
They'll take things like self-defense and whether or not there are even enough facts to prove the case into account, but they're not going to make their own competency determination because they're not qualified to make it. That's for a professional to make.
I never said they'd make their own determination...not sure where you're getting that. They obviously had testing done but they did the wrong testing, so how does any of this have anything to do with the facts as reported in the story? it doesn't.

You seem to be under the impression I'm out to disparage the court...but in truth I'm merely reporting what's happened prior to this case in other circumstances involving this particular court, which is why they've been the subject of federal investigation. Obviously that has bearing when you're looking at a decision like this. Incidently, I looked up the minimum penalty for aggrevated sexual assault on a child in Texas, and it's 25 years, which explains why he's been given 100...the judge stacked the sentences rather than letting them run concurrently. If nothing else...that raises it's own questions. An appelate court will undoubtedly hear this case, and I'm sure it will get decided one way or the other. If they rule he's competent and he goes to prison...that's the system, but in this case, they allegedly didn't even follow the procedures necessary to accurately consider the facts.

TheReverend
06-14-2009, 02:32 PM
^^^The "wall of text offensive".

BabyTO
06-14-2009, 02:38 PM
You're looking at this wrong.

First off, having a disabled kid isn't an excuse for improper parental supervision. It's on them.

Secondly, what about the parents of the six year old? He didn't do anything wrong and thanks to this situation, his life is changed for the worse forever.
I was just saying. It wasnt really an argument i'd use. You can't really use that as an argument (if you were that little boys dad or that 18yo kids dad). Its biased. The little boys dad probably is gonna wish death on that 18yo. But that doesn't mean he should be killed. The dad of the 18yo is going to argue that his kid shouldn't be punished because he doesn't know whats wrong and whats right. But that doesn't mean you can just let him walk. But thats how Karenin tried to argue just now.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 02:41 PM
^^^The "wall of text offensive".
Well people seldom click links and when they do they usually skew something or ignore it....so while ponderous...it remains effective. :~ohyah!:

Atlas
06-14-2009, 02:52 PM
Did you read the article? A diversionary program is not an option on serious felony charges.

Yep, the DA should have looked into treatment options that were not available under the law.

That's not true. At Mexia State School we have murderers and rapists. This individual does not need to be in jail.

Karenin
06-14-2009, 02:59 PM
Theres a flip side to that coin. Lets say you have a child (mentally disabled) but of course you love him. One day you find out what he did and you know exactly he didn't know what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong. Should your child spend the rest of his life in jail for that? Knowing you for this short time you'll probably say yes just to strengthen your own argument but we all know the truth. Of course you wouldnt want him to go to jail for this.

Say you had a kid who turned out to be a serial killer who raped and murdered 18 little boys. But you loved him, so it was all ok, and he shouldn't go to prison, right?

DHallblows
06-14-2009, 03:04 PM
You see BabyTO, you can't argue with someone who takes a molestation thread and uses examples of rape and murder to justify his claim.
If you want to engage in a debate go with footsteps and Hercules, they'll actually listen to your views and rebuttal them (more or less :~ohyah!:)

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 03:06 PM
Link to various problems related to the Paris TX judicial system:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:L81DELK_Tt0J:www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/saturday/chi-paris-storygallery,0,7201431.storygallery+paris+AND+texa s+AND+court+AND+%22justice+department%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 03:18 PM
Say you had a kid who turned out to be a serial killer who raped and murdered 18 little boys. But you loved him, so it was all ok, and he shouldn't go to prison, right?
What serial killer?

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 03:19 PM
I worked in the Texas mental health system for 15 years, and among other things, did case management of all kinds, including those for court appointed cases, such as those enrolled in sexual addictions and treatment programs, so yes...I've seen quite a few confidential files of people convicted of criminal sexual offenses...one of the worst jobs around BTW.

How again does this answer my question? How do you know why certain SOs are in the community and this one is going to prison? Did the case files tell you why a prosecutor plead a case a certain way? If you've read case files, you obviously understand that there are different sex offenses with different penalty ranges, but in the beginning you lumped them all together and question why some are in prison and others you can look up to see who lives closer to you.


Nonsence.

First of all, the prosecutor himself ALREADY knows this guy is mentally retarded and the story makes it clear not only that he does, but that it wasn't that they "didn't have time to complete testing", as you suggest, but rather they did the WRONG testing...so clearly they DID take time to test but they screwed up. I also happen to know that testing for mental retardation does not take the time you suggest, and obviously if it did, NO Texas court would ever be able to do the testing nor to considering mental defect as a defense...which is what mental retardation is...mental defect

Title 2, Section 8.01(a) of the Texas Penal Code says it's an affirmative defense to prosecution if the individual commiting the crime is judged to have a "mental disease or defect", so clearly the court expects this defense to be legitimately presented and obviously considered by prosecutors BEFORE filing cases. Section 22.04(c) describes an individual as "disabled" if he's over 14 years old and "by reason...of mental disease or defect...is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter or medical care for himself." In other words...the same terminology offered to remove consent, exists for an affirmative defense as well...one the prosecutor in this case failed to consider if the story is accurate.

The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities describes the impact of mental retardation and when the determination must be made in court proceedings to determine competency: http://www.txddc.state.tx.us/public_policy/position/competency.asp



Nothing you posted there actually refutes my point that you claim is nonsense. You're still not grasping that there is going to be a jurisdictional time limit within which a DA's Office will be required to file charges or the charges will get dismissed. When competency is raised, there's a process that must be followed.

Here's the Colorado process, I would bet that most states are actually quite similar, including Texas:

Charges filed
Defense attorney raises competency issues
Defendant is evaluated for competency
Case is stayed, nothing happens until the competency determination is returned
When that determination is returned, if competent, case proceeds. If not competent, they can move for a declaration of permanent incomptency or the see if there's anything that can be done to restore a person to competency.

They're not going full-bore while they're figuring out whether or not someone is competent. It's a slow process and some things are not happening at the same time. The DA's Office is not deciding whether or not they're going to file charges while someone is undergoing the testing to see if they're competent or not. First, charges are filed and then competency is raised. They're not going to take his intelligence level into account on whether or not they're going to file charges because someone who is retarded is not per se incompetent (as your link even states).

I never said they'd make their own determination...not sure where you're getting that. They obviously had testing done but they did the wrong testing, so how does any of this have anything to do with the facts as reported in the story? it doesn't.

That they did the wrong testing is the claim of his appellate lawyer.

You seem to be under the impression I'm out to disparage the court...but in truth I'm merely reporting what's happened prior to this case in other circumstances involving this particular court, which is why they've been the subject of federal investigation. Obviously that has bearing when you're looking at a decision like this. Incidently, I looked up the minimum penalty for aggrevated sexual assault on a child in Texas, and it's 25 years, which explains why he's been given 100...the judge stacked the sentences rather than letting them run concurrently. If nothing else...that raises it's own questions. An appelate court will undoubtedly hear this case, and I'm sure it will get decided one way or the other. If they rule he's competent and he goes to prison...that's the system, but in this case, they allegedly didn't even follow the procedures necessary to accurately consider the facts.

I don't think you're disparaging the court, I just think that you think things should happen quicker than it does or should be going on at the same time, which is not the case in our judicial system. It moves slow, and certain courses of action must be followed. But I do think you're putting a ton of stock in his appellate attorney's claim the wrong test was done. That might be the issue he will raise, but that might not necessarily be the case. The testing that declared him competent might be perfectly in line with what the required testing.

Now that I look at that article again (edit), I've got my own questions with what really happened during the proceedings. It says the kid plead guilty, why is a jury involved and why is the case going up on appeal? Either he was convicted at trial of all counts, hence the appeal and the jury's involvement in the matter, or he plead guilty and I have no idea why the kid is appealing his own guilty plea unless someone has raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his original attorney.

Ratboy
06-14-2009, 03:31 PM
All I can think about is this guy:

http://www.3click.tv/mp4//Its%20Always%20Sunny%20in%20Philadelphia/season3/metadata/337194.jpg

http://lastheplace.com/images/article-images/2007_Writers/Kelly/Kyle-Davis/Kyle-Davis.jpg

Lil Kevin from It's Always Sunny in Philly.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 03:58 PM
How again does this answer my question? How do you know why certain SOs are in the community and this one is going to prison? Did the case files tell you why a prosecutor plead a case a certain way? If you've read case files, you obviously understand that there are different sex offenses with different penalty ranges, but in the beginning you lumped them all together and question why some are in prison and others you can look up to see who lives closer to you.
I never "lumped them all together", but a quick check of sex offender locaters will reveal that there are numerous people living free in society who were convicted of some of the same offenses listed...aggreavated sexual assault on a child for one...rape...etc...look it up and you'll see. Second...your question implies I need to know every detail of each case. I reject that for obvious reasons...first because conviction carries a penalty, and second, because THIS case is obviously laden with huge issues...issues that Texas law itself defines as defensible. So what's your point?
Nothing you posted there actually refutes my point that you claim is nonsense. You're still not grasping that there is going to be a jurisdictional time limit within which a DA's Office will be required to file charges or the charges will get dismissed. When competency is raised, there's a process that must be followed.
Don't talk to me like I'm stupid OK? It's not that I'm not grasping this simple point. I'm simply rejecting it. Are you seriously telling me that there's not enough time to test this kid? That's nonsense, because obviously OTHER COURTS DO exactly that...or rather they wait on to be done, since you made an issue of who does testing. Why else would the law expect this to be done? I don't feel like the laborious task of scanning through Vernon's but if you want to make this point and you can show me some kind of insanely short time period is available for the DA to file charges...have at it. But for now you need to explain two things; why other courts can do this and this one didn't, and second; why they had time to test him for having a mental disorder but not time to evaluate him otherwise as they were properly supposed to do. Your point is meaningless because it doesn't exist. So you can create a list all you want to but under the Texas Penal Code the DA is an idiot if he doesnt' consider whether the potential defendant is going to court with an automatic defense or not.

They're not going full-bore while they're figuring out whether or not someone is competent. It's a slow process and some things are not happening at the same time.
What "slow process" are you referring to? I've seen testing for mental retardation and it's a coupld of afternoons administering testing...generally followed by a diagnostician spending time with the subject and reviewing other case file material off prior evaluations. Again...tell me why this is routinely done in other cases and not this one? I already posted information on Texas guidelines that specifically show that these evaluations are supposed to be done before going to court. Why do you think there's an appeal here? It's because there was improper testing done and even the DA and the judge seem to understand this guy is mentally deficient. I haven't heard you say anthng to justify one iota of proof on why they had an excuse to proceed without properly identifying the problem here. Read the other BS on the Paris judicial system...it's laden with all kinds of problems, and this is not even the only current controversy...another racism case is building inn the system already and this entire system has been, and continues to be subject to review by the feds. Maybe you should grant a smidgen of consideration to that instead of trying to tell me it takes to long to test someone. Off the top of your head...what's the statute of limitations on aggrevated sexual assault on a child? I don't know...but I promise you they were in no danger of exceeding it and they could file charges at any time if they so desired.
The DA's Office is not deciding whether or not they're going to file charges while someone is undergoing the testing to see if they're competent or not. First, charges are filed and then competency is raised. They're not going to take his intelligence level into account on whether or not they're going to file charges because someone who is retarded is not per se incompetent (as your link even states).
My link said nothing of the kind, and any DA who does not want to have an affirmative defense raised that excludes the defendant from prosecution absolutely WOULD consider this. Even if he filed charges first, there is no reason not to rescind charges if it appears no case exists. Obvioulsy if the defendant can raise an affirmative defense, it's probably not in the State's interest to proceed if it's legally established he's not even competant to stand trial. Again...this had nothing to do with time, everything to do with this small town judicial system screwing the pooch.
That they did the wrong testing is the claim of his appellate lawyer.
Of course it is...it's also an issue that should have been before the trial court.
But I do think you're putting a ton of stock in his appellate attorney's claim the wrong test was done. That might be the issue he will raise, but that might not necessarily be the case. The testing that declared him competent might be perfectly in line with what the required testing.
It's not just the wrong test...it's testing for the WRONG THING. If the story is accurate and they in fact did test him for some kind of mental disorder...that obviously is huge because it falls outside the boundaries of where the "mental defect" claim exists...in this case mental retardation. Seriously...you don't think an appelate court somewhere up the line will wonder why this lower court with a long history of judicial bias didn't consider the fact that the kid was never tested appropriately for mental retardation instead of trying to determine if he was depressed or something? Really? I beg to differ...and since the US Justice system is already looking at these yahoos, there's a great chance of it happening sooner rather than later IMO. The Texas Youth Commission was already raically impacted two years ago when the feds went after them on the basis of the events in the Shaquanda Cotton case, and they are now looking at other crap they've pulled.
Now that I look at that article, I've got my own questions with what really happened during the proceedings. It says the kid plead guilty, why is a jury involved and why is the case going up on appeal? Either he was convicted at trial of all counts, hence the appeal and the jury's involvement in the matter, or he plead guilty and I have no idea why the kid is appealing his own guilty plea unless someone has raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his original attorney.
First of all, why not look at the article before posting? As to the rest of this, I suspect that you're right...that he did have inadequate counsel...or else a judge whose a nitwit. But here's something to consider...in the Shaquanda Cotton trial, the judge and DA were shown to be biased...and in fact they were forced to admit in a federal investigation that a deal was offered her mother, when in fact they later said it wasn't.

This is a small town court with a long history of serious indiscretions and improprieties and since it's obvious to anyone reading this that major issues exist...why assume that the court/judge/DA did the right thing? Prior history suggests no such assumption is warranted.

Hercules Rockefeller
06-14-2009, 04:43 PM
Don't talk to me like I'm stupid OK? It's not that I'm not grasping this simple point. I'm simply rejecting it. Are you seriously telling me that there's not enough time to test this kid? That's nonsense, because obviously OTHER COURTS DO exactly that. Why else would the law expect this to be done? I don't feel like the laborious task of scanning through Vernon's but if you want to make this point and you can show me some kind of insanely short time period is available for the DA to file charges...have at it. But for now you need to explain two things; why other courts can do this and this one didn't, and second; why they had time to test him for having a mental disorder but not time to evaluate him otherwise as they were properly supposed to do. Your point is meaningless because it doesn't exist. So you can create a list all you want to but under the Texas Penal Code the DA is an idiot if he doesnt' consider whether the potential defendant is going to court with an automatic defense or not.

Again, there must be formal proceedings against someone before competency can be raised. Your own link pointed out that competency must be determined before trial. You're still not grasping the time limit that a DA's Office has to file charges against someone, that's not a statute of limitations issue since they've been arrested on for the case. Sure they can not arrest him until the end of the statute of limitations, but no competency determination will be done if there's not a pending case. That has nothing to do with "not enough time to test him" like you continue to claim. That's saying that they must file charges within a certain time period, competency issues notwithstanding. Competency is then determined at a different time.

You continue to put stock in the appellate lawyers claim that the proper testing was not done. That is what he's basing his appeal on (or at least all the article includes in there), it will be up to an appellate court to make that determination and you continue to assert this as a fact that he was not properly tested. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

Again, it is not up to the DA's Office to determine whether or not someone is incompetent to proceed. That is determined by a medical professional. The article you linked points out that someone is not per se incompetent because they are mentally retarded. So therefore, some testing must be done to determine whether or not someone is competent. That's why a DA's Office is not going to take someone's mental capacity into consideration when they make a filing decision.


What "slow process" are you referring to? I've seen testing for mental retardation and it's a coupld of afternoons administering testing...generally followed by a diagnostician spending time with the subject and reviewing other case file material off prior evaluations. Again...tell me why this is routinely done in other cases and not this one? I already posted information on Texas guidelines that specifically show that these evaluations are supposed to be done before going to court. Why do you think there's an appeal here? It's because there was improper testing done and even the DA and the judge seem to udnerstand this guy is mentally deficient. I haven't heard you say anthng to justify one iota of proof on why they had an excuse to proceed without properly identifying the problem here. Read the other BS on the Paris judicial system...it's laden with all kinds of problems, and this is not even the only current controversy...another racism case is building inn the system already and this entire system has been, and continues to be subject to review by the feds. Maybe you should grant a smidgen of consideration to that instead of trying to tell me it takes to long to test someone. Off the top of your head...what's the statute of limitations on aggrevated sexual assault on a child? I don't know...but I promise you they were in no danger of exceeding it and they could file charges at any time if they so desired.

You understand that the slow process I'm referring to is the time between court dates right? You understand that said individual is probably not the only person who has competency raised in the area and they have to meet with the doctors as well? You understand that even after the medical professional writes his report, it will need to be given to both the DA handling the case and the defense attorney to review? You understand that depending on what it says, one side will probably want to challenge the results? You don't just have court on a Monday and request a competency evaluation, and be back in the court the following Monday with everyone ready to go? You understand that's not the only case on the court's docket? Sure, the actual comp testing on a person can be through in a week or two, but that still isn't the end of the determination. That's the slow process I was referring to, it's just not the diagnosis.

You don't have a single iota of proof that he was misdiagnosed as competent, you're entire basis is the claim of the appellate lawyer. The court and the DA obviously thought they had a proper finding of competency, that's why they proceeded with the case. Obviously his original attorney didn't appeal that finding either.

My link said nothing of the kind, and any DA who does not want to have an affirmative defense raised that excludes the defendant from prosecution absolutely WOULD consider this. Even if he filed charges first, there is no reason not to rescind charges if it appears no case exists. Obvioulsy if the defendant can raise an affirmative defense, it's probably not in the State's interest to proceed if it's legally established he's not even competant to stand trial. Again...this had nothing to do with time, everything to do with this small town judicial system screwing the pooch.

Yes, your link did. In fact you actually posted the specific line:

A diagnosis of mental retardation or mental illness does not automatically mean a person is incompetent to stand trial.

Next time read what you copy and past. That's why they file charges, because just because someone is mentally retarded it does not make them incompetent to stand trial. Just because there's a defense doesn't mean they won't file charges either. Unless so it's so obviously self-defense (example), charges will get filed and the case can go to trial and the jury can decide whether or not they want to believe the defense.

One more time, the initial finding was competent by a medical professional. Are you saying that a DA should dismiss a case where a medical professional finds him competent when the DA does not have the requisite background to make that determination himself? Why even have the kid go to a doctor to see if he's competent if we should just let the DA make that decision on his own without even considering the professional's opinion?

Of course it is...it's also an issue that should have been before the trial court.

Not if all parties involved think that the proper testing was done in the first place.

It's not just the wrong test...it's testing for the WRONG THING. If the story is accurate and they in fact did test him for some kind of mental disorder...that obviously is huge because it falls outside the boundaries of where the "mental defect" claim exists...in this case mental retardation. Seriously...you don't think an appelate court somewhere up the line will wonder why this lower court with a long history of judicial bias didn't consider the fact that the kid was never tested appropriately for mental retardation instead of trying to determine if he was depressed or something? Really? I beg to differ...and since the US Justice system is already looking at these yahoos, there's a great chance of it happening sooner rather than later IMO. The Texas Youth Commission was already raically impacted two years ago when the feds went after them on the basis of the events in the Shaquanda Cotton case, and they are now looking at other crap they've pulled.

Obviously this is a case of judicial bias. A competency evaluation was done, the kid was found competent, and it's now the court's fault that he/she didn't on their own, question whether or not the proper testing was done on an issue that was not raised by either side. Obvious complete bias.

First of all, why not look at the article before posting? As to the rest of this, I suspect that you're right...that he did have inadequate counsel...or else a judge whose a nitwit. But here's something to consider...in the Shaquanda Cotton trial, the judge and DA were shown to be biased...and in fact they were forced to admit in a federal investigation that a deal was offered her mother, when in fact they later said it wasn't.

Good catch, should have said now that I look at the article again.

Cotton's conviction was not overturned, though they refused to rule on the racial aspect, and at least according to wiki (since the link to the Houston Chronicle article is broke), her own defense attorney said a plea deal was offered. Cotton maintained her innocence, that's why she took it to trial.

footstepsfrom#27
06-14-2009, 06:35 PM
Again, there must be formal proceedings against someone before competency can be raised.
So what?
Your own link pointed out that competency must be determined before trial.
And?...what is your point? Here's the quote from the link:

Further, the determination of mental retardation must be made by the court in a proceeding that occurs prior to the onset of a trial

Obviously they determine this prior to trial...why that keeps coming up...I have no idea, because I've said all along, they should have done the testing and determined competency based on that before going to court. Whether you want to split hairs about testing before filing charges, after filing charges...who cares? The point is...IT WASN'T DONE!! I continue to ask you WHY the DA would proceed not knowing that this guy possibly/probably has an affirmative defense...one capable of eliminating him from prosecution. The DA can dismiss charges at any time.
You're still not grasping the time limit that a DA's Office has to file charges against someone, that's not a statute of limitations issue since they've been arrested on for the case.
Yes it is. First of all, the DA could have very easily arranged this be scheduled prior to going to court...show otherwise if you can. Second...charges can be dropped and re-filed. The only thing keeping him from re-filing charges is the statute of limitations.

I ask the same question I continue to...how is it you think they do this down here in other cases, but they couldn't do it in this one?
Sure they can not arrest him until the end of the statute of limitations, but no competency determination will be done if there's not a pending case.
Eh...I assume you mean they CAN arrest him untill the end of the statute of limitations...right? Hence my point...he can be re-arrested.
That has nothing to do with "not enough time to test him" like you continue to claim. That's saying that they must file charges within a certain time period, competency issues notwithstanding. Competency is then determined at a different time.
Why don't you tell me what that period of time is, and second, why other courts have no problem doing this?
You continue to put stock in the appellate lawyers claim that the proper testing was not done. That is what he's basing his appeal on (or at least all the article includes in there), it will be up to an appellate court to make that determination and you continue to assert this as a fact that he was not properly tested. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.
NO...the appeal is not that he wasn't properly tested...he was tested for something OTHER THAN MENTAL RETARDATION...and IF that's true, it's the same as if they never tested him at all. I seriously doubt that if he WAS tested for mental retardation, this attorney is so utterly stupid that he'd file an appeal based on that. The testing for mental illness is often nothing more than an interview done by a shrink, one where the subject is asked questions about behavior and things relevant to a finding of mental illness as defined by the DSM IV...that's a completely different thing. Sure...we could assume the lawyer for the defense is an utter moron, but even a moron would probably know the difference. Why use that as the basis for an appeal if it WAS done properly?
Again, it is not up to the DA's Office to determine whether or not someone is incompetent to proceed. That is determined by a medical professional.
It's incumbant on the DA to know if he's got a case or not, and if the defendant has a legal and affirmative defense to prosecution...one with the potential to eliminate the case from prosecution...yes, it certainly is something a competent DA would do. Why go to court otherwise? You're acting like once the DA made a decision to file charges he was bound to continue...he's not.
The article you linked points out that someone is not per se incompetent because they are mentally retarded. So therefore, some testing must be done to determine whether or not someone is competent. That's why a DA's Office is not going to take someone's mental capacity into consideration when they make a filing decision.
You continue floating this...Please...you actually expect me to believe the DA has no discretionary authority on whether to pursue a case if a finding of incompetence exists? I never said he was incompetent if he's mentally retarded...that's not the point. I said he wasn't tested for the right thing, therefore NOBODY KNOWS if he's competent or not.
You understand that the slow process I'm referring to is the time between court dates right? You understand that said individual is probably not the only person who has competency raised in the area and they have to meet with the doctors as well? You understand that even after the medical professional writes his report, it will need to be given to both the DA handling the case and the defense attorney to review? You understand that depending on what it says, one side will probably want to challenge the results?
Only an idiot would not understand these things. Do YOU understand it's done all the time? Why was it not done here? Give me one good reason why it's done frequently without any problem and it was not done here?
You understand that's not the only case on the court's docket?
Dude...it's Paris Texas, Lamar County...this is not Dallas. This is Hicksville, less than 50,000 people in the whole county. I highly doubt their docket was so jammed that instead of waiting long enough for the finding, they were obligated to proceed with charges against a mentally retarded guy so they could send him to prison for 100 years instead of holding the trial once the finding was in. What you're saying makes ZERO sense.
You don't have a single iota of proof that he was misdiagnosed as competent, you're entire basis is the claim of the appellate lawyer. The court and the DA obviously thought they had a proper finding of competency, that's why they proceeded with the case. Obviously his original attorney didn't appeal that finding either.
His original attorney is the one filing the appeal. Where are you getting this evidence of a new attorney? I already stated that "IF" the story is accurate about the test then he's got good grounds to appeal. What you seem to be implying...is that this court had no discretionary authority to consider his condition...but even THE JUDGE HIMSELF said he had problems with this. One thing I do know...he stacked the sentences rather than having them run consecutively. THAT hasn't got anything to do with his competency.
Next time read what you copy and past.
Next time actually read the aticle before you comment on it.
That's why they file charges, because just because someone is mentally retarded it does not make them incompetent to stand trial.
I didn't say it did but keep spining that. I said the Texas Penal Code provides mental defect as an affirmative defense, and if this story is acccurate then there's a strong probability they didn't do their homework.
Just because there's a defense doesn't mean they won't file charges either. Unless so it's so obviously self-defense (example), charges will get filed and the case can go to trial and the jury can decide whether or not they want to believe the defense.
A finding of not competent to stand trial by reason of mental defect is even better than a self defense claim. It's a case killer, one the court has to consider as ending settling the issue.
One more time, the initial finding was competent by a medical professional.
Actually the initial finding...if the story is accurate...suggests that they determined he was not mentally ill...that has NOTHING to do with being retarded, and by extension...nothing to do with him being competent to stand trial if he's retarded.
Are you saying that a DA should dismiss a case where a medical professional finds him competent when the DA does not have the requisite background to make that determination himself? Why even have the kid go to a doctor to see if he's competent if we should just let the DA make that decision on his own without even considering the professional's opinion?
This same court just dismissed a murder case that's evoked questions of evidence dissapearing against white defendants suspected of killilng a black victim. They sent a 14 year old girl to prison for 7 years for pushing a teacher's aid and let another one go scott free after she burned down a schoolhouse. They're under federal investigation by more than one agency...they could do lilterally ANYTHING out there. Yet you seem sold on the idea they have a clue what they're doing?
Cotton's conviction was not overturned, though they refused to rule on the racial aspect, and at least according to wiki (since the link to the Houston Chronicle article is broke), her own defense attorney said a plea deal was offered. Cotton maintained her innocence, that's why she took it to trial.
This is Texas...any idea on WHY they refused to rule on the racial aspect? I know it wasn't overturned, but the DA and the judge in the case both had to change their story under further questioning when this came to light. Both the US Department of Education and the US Justice Department are investigating and the entire Texas Youth Correctional System (Kid Prison) has been forced to turn thousands of offenders loose in large part because of the events in Paris. This county's judiial system has a black eye...and it's apparent to anyone with a brain that the intent of the justice system is not to put retarded kids in prison for 100 years, especially when there's a question if they even acted in accordance with the laws of the state or not.

You can continue dancing around the mullberry bush on this...but I'm finished with this fruitless conversation. I do find it extremely interesting that you admit you didn't even read the article before posting, and also that you have not one word to say about the history of abuses known to exist in this county. Fine...you think he should go to prison for 100 years...I think a LOT of questions should be asked on this.

FS27...OUT

Spider
06-14-2009, 06:39 PM
Ceceed is the word you are looking for moron.

And Texas can not ceceed.

And Texas is certainly not the only state that has some moronic judgements passed down upon individuals. Every state in the union has their share of idiocy, Wyoming included.

LOL you blew it professor .........

Rock Chalk
06-15-2009, 01:45 PM
It is secede. Come on Alex

**** that I got closer than he did and I was drunk.

Rock Chalk
06-15-2009, 01:46 PM
LOL you blew it professor .........

Ahh yes, but I had alcohol as an excuse, you're just an idiot :)

Hercules Rockefeller
06-15-2009, 02:59 PM
You can continue dancing around the mullberry bush on this...but I'm finished with this fruitless conversation. I do find it extremely interesting that you admit you didn't even read the article before posting, and also that you have not one word to say about the history of abuses known to exist in this county. Fine...you think he should go to prison for 100 years...I think a LOT of questions should be asked on this.

FS27...OUT

Yeah I'm dancing. You still do not understand that competency cannot be raised until there is an actual case pending. They cannot sit there and hold off arresting him until there's a comp determination, that only comes after he's been formally charged. I know, I'm talking to you like you're stupid, but from all your responses in here that's what you've come across as.

You're also playing semantics games, like you normally do when people call you out on anything on this board. Oh no!! I said he wasn't properly tested, while you think he wasn't given the right test. Keep repeating that over and over again, and maybe you can convince yourself that there's a real difference in those statements that actually mean anything.

How many times are you going to say a DA should know whether or not someone is retarded and unable to prosecute? Maybe if you were actually able to understand that there must be formal charges (seriously, how many ****ing times do I have to say that for you to be able to comprehend that?) before the determination on whether or not he's competent to proceed can even been determined. Again, there needs to be a formal filing of charges before competency can be raised. Got it? Probably not, since I've already said it a half a dozen times already and you still keep pointing out the DA should know whether that affirmative defense exists first.

One more time, they can't determine competency until he's been charged.

Only an idiot wouldn't understand the process? That's apparently you in this case. You don't think these things were done? You actually don't think that his attorney would have asked for a competency hearing? Seriously? The defense attorney had a client who had obvious mental deficiencies, and you think they wouldn't request a comp determination? Yeah, obviously everyone in that county's judicial system is out to stick it to every defendant they see, even defense counsel tries to do it too. You're either willfully ignorant of what any defense attorney would do, even one who just passed the bar would know to request a comptency determination, or you're unable to look at the situation in an even remotely unbiased way.

His original attorney is filing an appeal? Do you even know what an appellate attorney is? Hint: It's not going to be his original attorney because there could be a conflict of interest based on how the case was handled by the original attorney. But you just keep on believing that his original attorney filed that appeal. Appellate is probably a new word for you, look it up next time.

I like how it was the DA who put Cotton in jail for 7 years. Of course you're forgetting that that case actually went to a jury (which wasn't all white) and it took them all of 10 minutes to convict her and a judge sentenced her. Yep, that DA's office was judge, jury, and executioner in her case. Try again. Next time pretend that you have some basic understanding of the legal system before you post articles to spark your "discussion". She was convicted and it wasn't overturned by an appeals court. Guess what that means? She's guilty!!!

I like you say I didn't read the article before posting, yet you cut out the part of my post that thanked you for catching the lack of the word "again" in my post that has subsequently been edited. But hey, that's just another time where you can claim a "point" in your head.

I love how you ended with the Jim Rome reference and you bolded it too!! That's might be my favorite part, some moron on the internet saying "out" at the end of their post like anyone cares. It would have been even cooler if someone had posted a "Rack him!" after your post also. That would have made it super sweet and just rammed home the point that you're a wannabe internet badass. Maybe you can ask TJ for a smackoff or something and we can all request that your post be racked and vote for you for the huge post of the day! That might be the coolest thing this board has ever done, all thanks to your "out" at the end of your post.

Spider
06-16-2009, 06:33 AM
Ahh yes, but I had alcohol as an excuse, you're just an idiot :)

LOL closer ? I added an extra C ....... you left letters out ....... Booze always gets blamed ;D

Miss I.
06-16-2009, 07:29 AM
okay have a few things, go get a beer...and I will still be rambling:
1. Spider and Alec - you two need some privacy? Or should I pull out the ruller and see which of your "egos" is largest...or you know you could just see which one of you pees a longer distance..again a measuring device will be needed (and then will send it for drug testing)
2. The thread topic: the mentally incapacitated 18 year old should be put in mental health ward to get help, but never released. He isn't capable of actual change I think, but he can be kept safe and out of the way of other children he could hurt. For the record, I really don't believe sex offenders of any type can be rehabilitated, simply incarcerated to prevent further rapes or assaults on the innocent people. The recividism rate would indicate it isn't a fixable issue. And child molestation is still rape, it's a more powerful person forcing their will upon a a weaker person to prove their dominance (in the case of this mentally challenged guy, he may not have had the capacity to make that decision so a mental health facility makes more sense, but other child rapists I say put those ****ers in general population and see how they like it...bastards). In this case, maybe the guy only played with him, but didn't engage in actual intercourse, but I can tell you right now that little boy is at the very least emotionally scarred. The guy was convicted of sexual assault (whatever the legal definition might cover..it might be broader then just rape).
3. I do agree every side has two stories and every case is different, but I have to admit a low tolerance for rape or sexual assault of any kind, but it is particularly inflamatory with regards to children.
Okay done...you can wake up now..