In class we recently discussed the many rights the Constitution lays out that protects criminals. In this case Gary Allen pleaded guilty to charges of capital murder of his wife then 24 years old when he shot her outside the daycare of their children. Allen was declared unfit to stand trial when he was diagnosed with schizophrenia but later found sane and competent to be put to death.
Allen was granted by a federal judge a stay of execution that would give him 15 days to appeal his conviction.
This has always been an issue I just don't understand. I don't necessarily agree with the protection of the handicapped under the law. Giving these individuals rights that allow them to walk away because they are unfit to stand trial seems like bologna to me. I am a strong believer of an "eye for eye." If someone is sane enough to commit a crime, they are sane enough to receive the appropriate punishment, end of story. I know this brings up a huge argument "of Mice and Men" but really everyone knows should know right from wrong even handicapped people. I believe those that committed these crimes had to have some level of mens rea I just don't see someone accidentally killing someone because they didn't know what they were doing. It just doesn't make sense to me.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=19600731&title=judge-grants-okla-inmate-stay-of-execution
Mental issues are really tough ones, especially when it comes to legal standing. It's as you said, mens rea has to be proven in our current system. I think a lot of people try to take advantage of the legal system in that way, for sure. Sadly, there's no easy answer.
ReplyDelete