Should the law go easier on low IQ offenders?
Posted: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 3:22 pm
Interesting...
Tough nut to crack I'd say, as the offenders still pose danger to society.
Should there be laws and sentences based on IQ and/or mental capabilities?
Eric
I followed that case of the 18 year old, who molested girls and has the mental ability of an 11 year old. I also found it a bit weird he got an even stiffer sentence at his appeal...Oct 19, 2005
Should the law go easier on low IQ offenders?
Mental capacity no excuse if he knows it's wrong, says minister
By Laurel Teo
NO OFFENDER, whether of normal or low intelligence, can be excused entirely from his actions so long as he understands that what he did was wrong.
NEED TO CONSIDER CIRCUMSTANCES: 'If an offender repeatedly commits an offence knowing full well that what he did was wrong and knowing the gravity of his conduct, the judge may well decide that it is appropriate to give a deterrent sentence...(The judge) may not give great weight to the mitigation argument based on the factor of low intelligence.' -- PROFESSOR S. JAYAKUMAR, Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister
In making this point yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister S. Jayakumar also dismissed the idea of changing the law to mete out sentences based on IQ or intelligence levels.
What constitutes an appropriate sentence depends on the facts of each case, he said, and is a decision best left to the judge.
He was responding to Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC), who asked whether the Government would consider reviewing its criminal laws to differentiate between sentences for convicted people who are of normal intelligence and those with low intelligence.
But Professor Jayakumar said such a proposal would be 'neither desirable nor practical'.
The issue of whether the law should treat people with low IQ differently arose in August, when convicted molester Iskandar Muhamad Nordin appealed, without a lawyer, to be spared the cane.He was given a stiffer sentence instead.
What sparked public debate was that the 18-year-old had an IQ of 58, compared to the 100 that a person with average intelligence would have.
While no direct reference was made in Parliament to that case, Prof Jayakumar gave this assurance: 'No one will be criminally culpable for his actions if his mental capacity is so limited that he did not understand the nature of the act, or what he was doing was wrong.'
He explained the process to determine this. First, accused persons of low intelligence are given psychological assessments during investigations, before they are charged and before they go on trial.
When investigations are completed, the public prosecutor will carefully consider the relevant facts, including mental capacities, before proceeding.
'Those who are charged with an offence are those who knew the nature of their actions and who could appreciate that it was wrong to do what they did,' he said.
After the trial has ended and if there is a conviction, a judge will consider all relevant factors and decide on the appropriate sentence.
How big a factor low intelligence plays in this depends on the circumstances of the individual case, he said.
'For example, if an offender repeatedly commits an offence knowing full well that what he did was wrong and knowing the gravity of his conduct, the judge may well decide that it is appropriate to give a deterrent sentence.'
And the judge 'may not give great weight to the mitigation argument based on the factor of low intelligence', he added.
Tough nut to crack I'd say, as the offenders still pose danger to society.
Should there be laws and sentences based on IQ and/or mental capabilities?
Eric