Exactly who is retarded?
But on whose part?
The teenager in question is retarded and the lines between right and wrong for him are blurry. This type of situation requires investigation, and more importantly, a judicious decision about the boy’s culpability and the need to be tried as an adult.
He probably didn’t realize what he was doing, so could he have truly intended to do wrong? But beyond the decision of intent lies the first important question: Is he competent to stand trial? All of these difficult and intriguing questions come into play in our cover story this week (see “Disorder in the Court”).
Another key aspect in this story is Proposition 21, the get-tough-on-young-criminals law. As with many propositions, some aspects of the law change when under the radar—you know, those paragraphs that you didn’t read in the voting booth. Prosecutors can now arbitrarily throw teenagers into adult court, even if they’re mentally deficient.
It turns out that Prop. 21 takes judges out of the picture when determining whether a juvenile is charged as an adult. There used to be a hearing before a judge to determine if a teenager is charged as an adult. Now the prosecutors decide. Aren’t they a little biased toward throwing the book at anyone accused of a crime? This situation will indeed require more investigation.