4 ms·

Well, if I'm putting on my rose glasses I'm just hoping that if she wins by this argument, she might just set a precedent for all the youth offenders of crime?

Well, if I'm putting on my rose glasses I'm just hoping that if she wins by this argument, she might just set a precedent for all the youth offenders of crime? Why would this case be any different of say, someone that grew up in an extremely poor neighborhood and had most of their life working against them, and then turn to crime. Instead of just throwing such young offenders into jail for a long time, a lawyer might argue that this high profile case is a precedent for the young offenders - because they couldn't help themselves. It feels really unfair, though.

dmix 6y ago
What is unfair here exactly? There hasn’t been anything close to a ruling. These hypotheticals in this thread are getting way ahead of reality here. It sounds like the courts are preempting the defense strategy by forcing a gov psych review instead of one paid for by the defendant. In criminal law cases it’s not an instant get out of jail free card if you’re found to have some mental issues. Nearly every lawyer brings up mental states in serious crimes. These judges aren’t stupid.
- staticman2 6y ago
  Judges don't decide cases, juries do. There are some people with medical degrees in this world who will say anything for money. Wealthy people pay these individuals to try to get them out of jail. Normal people can't afford that.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Judges don't decide cases, juries do. Even with jury trials, that's not really true, except that alignment with the jury verdict is required for criminal conviction (but not acquittal, or any civil judgement.) Because summary judgement/judgement as a matter of law/judgement non obstante veredicto is a thing, and even if one isn't issued in a particular case, it's because either no one petitioned the judge for it (unlikely) or the judge decided against it.
gkoberger 6y ago
Eh. Rich people on trial don't tend to set a precedent for poor people. OJ didn't cause young people questionably accused of murder to get a fairer trial, and Weinstein/Cosby's faux sick act didn't help actually sick people.

dmix 6y ago

What is unfair here exactly? There hasn’t been anything close to a ruling. These hypotheticals in this thread are getting way ahead of reality here. It sounds like the courts are preempting the defense strategy by forcing a gov psych review instead of one paid for by the defendant. In criminal law cases it’s not an instant get out of jail free card if you’re found to have some mental issues. Nearly every lawyer brings up mental states in serious crimes. These judges aren’t stupid.

staticman2 6y ago
Judges don't decide cases, juries do. There are some people with medical degrees in this world who will say anything for money. Wealthy people pay these individuals to try to get them out of jail. Normal people can't afford that.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Judges don't decide cases, juries do. Even with jury trials, that's not really true, except that alignment with the jury verdict is required for criminal conviction (but not acquittal, or any civil judgement.) Because summary judgement/judgement as a matter of law/judgement non obstante veredicto is a thing, and even if one isn't issued in a particular case, it's because either no one petitioned the judge for it (unlikely) or the judge decided against it.

gkoberger 6y ago

Eh. Rich people on trial don't tend to set a precedent for poor people. OJ didn't cause young people questionably accused of murder to get a fairer trial, and Weinstein/Cosby's faux sick act didn't help actually sick people.