Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ken0042
Here's my thoughts on the matter. First thing to ponder; who is more of the victim; the guy with PTSD, or the little girl? In my mind the little girl. How long will this affect the girl- I would guess the rest of her life. I've only known a few rape victims, and none of them were ever quite the same after.
So why should the guy who committed the act have less of a sentence to serve than the girl who was the bigger victim?
|
People who are found not guilty by reason of mental illness lacked the necessary level of mens rea to commit the offence. It means that if the judge was satisfied bsed on the evidence the defence was under the onus to provide, then this guy's PTSD affected his mind to such a degree that he can't be held responsible (legally) for his actions. It's like the guy really didn't know what he was doing was wrong or that he was doing anything at all at the time. In my mind, these people are dangerous but are better served by getting treatment than by being locked up in jail and forgot about.
Second point is that determining who the bigger victim is can be misleading. Just because one suffered, in your eyes, a more brutal injury than the other doesn't make the latter less worthy of treatment or sympathy than the former. World hunger might be causing, in your eyes, greater problems around the world but as a cause it doesn't mean that the homeless problem in Calgary deserves no attention or support. It is possible, nay required, that we pay attention to all the victims rather than just pick and choose. IMHO, of course.