Posted 01 October 2012 - 03:32 PM
Firstly, if you commit a crime while you are not fully in control of yourself (mentally ill, intellectually deficient, etc), then you cannot be found fully responsible for your actions. Secondly, a court will only administer a penalty to you if the court believes that you are able to understand why you are being penalised. If the court believes that the penalty would be pointless, because you are not mentally well enough, or intellectually able, to understand why you are being punished, there is really no point to penalise you. For a punishment to have any merit, the person must be able to understand what they did, and why they are being punished. They must understand in order to show any remorse for their actions.
A boy I worked with years ago, set fire to a house in in neighbourhood. The man who lived in the house, was burnt to death. Everyone was horrified and outraged at what the boy did, but because he was a minor, and had an intellectual disability (70-75 range IQ score), the court found him not guilty, by way of intellectual capacity. The court was very clear that they understood that yes, he was the person who set fire to the house, but that he was not intellectually able to understand the outcome of lighting the fire. He wasn't old enough or smart enough to think of the consequences, and so they established that there was no intent to kill the man. Also, because of his intellectual limitations, he wasn't able to completely understand why a court would punish him. The court decided that punishment would be pointless, because the boy couldn't understand why he was being punished.