Re: Michael Jackson
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan lall
According to me, little children are excluded. I'm just telling you how the law sees things. In fact, the law sees those under 12 as unable to form criminal intent, or mens rea (which is, along with a guilty act, actus reus, what a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict any crime). Those older than 12 and under 18 are often tried under special conditions. And those who are insane (whether it's acquired or whether they were always insane), can use the insanity plea. Knowing right from wrong is a good criterion, because by definition, it does not preclude conviction of sociopaths. Regardless, MJ could tell. I think you might be using 'insane' and 'too young' interchangeably. Children pick up well before age 12 what is right and what is wrong, but 12 is a somewhat arbitrary number that jurists have chosen as 'too young to form intent'. This has nothing to do with insanity. Even if MJ still were childlike, he is not insane. Furthermore, he is not under 12, and therefore is not a child.
|
And this is, unfortunately, one of the flaws of our legal system. There is no reasonable way a jury's judgement can be scaled for the emotional level of the defendent. I have met eight-year-olds that have a better sense of right and wrong than many people our age. Case in point: Ask a little child if it's ok to take another child's toy. He'll tell you it's not ok. But ask a teen if it's ok to share music or hack into a computer, and he'll be much more vague.
Therefore, it is impossible to judge every person completely fairly, since no one can know exactly his emotional and moral development.
Alas that we are not gods. ;) |
