You be the Judge III

[Luther_Hull]

Yes it's that time of the week again. This is a real case that I've just read about in my Law textbook, so in your opinion, should the defendant be found liable for their actions? If so, what sort of punishment would be justifiable?:

A 14 year old girl who is mentally handicapped runs away from home and takes shelter in a garden shed. When she's in there she lights some white spirit with a match to keep warm, not realising at the time that would in fact burn the whole shed down.

Should she be found liable for arson? If so what punishment should be applied?

Edit: Yeah she got out.

 

[Tim]

Well if she lit the match in there wouldn't she have died from the fire? Or did she escape?

Assuming that she escaped, I would say that it isn't her fault. I would not have known that white spirit is flammable, in fact I had to look it up just then to find out what it was. How could a mentally handicapped girl have known what it was? So I would say that she shouldn't be punished for arson. She would not have known that the whole shed could have gone up in flames.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well she certainley shouldnt be put into prison. She is mentally handi capped. It wasnt arson, becuase she wasnt intentionally trying to fuck some shit up. Although the parents should be held finacially responsible for the shed and its contents, becuase their silly daughter escaped, and did that. They should have a better eye on her if she has special needs, so therefore, they should be held fiscally responsible.

 

[FromTheSouth]

She would never be found fit to stand trial.

And I agree that the parents should be held liable for the shed and its contents. You just be responsible for a special needs child. If a dog gets out and hurts someone, the owner is held liable. In this case, I think that is precedent enough. I know it seems wrong to make the comparison, and I am in now way saying that the handicapped are animals. What I am saying, is that the both are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, and that those responsible for them are liable for their mischief, as they have accepted the responsibility for the actions of that being.

There should be no criminal damages, and it should never get to court, as the parents of that child, if they have any decency at all, should offer to cover the damages.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

Yeah, prison is out of the question I think. I mean they keep people with mental issues who kill people than they should defenitly keep a person who on a mistake burnt down a shed put as well(if that was even an option). Like someone said it's really down to her parents responsibility anyways since(well at least here in Canada)if your under a certain age(16 or 18)and do damage it's your parents financial responsibility and this should be the same case.

 

[Shocky]

Pretty open and shut case. She's underage to begin with, so she wouldn't be held liable. Her parents or guardians would be the ones held responsible if she was responsible regardless.

Plus her mental condition. If she is truly handicapped, then there really isn't nothing you can do, (such as Down Syndrome or another form). But if it's a psychological handicap, then she should probably be institutionalized or forced to see a professional to work out whatever problems she has.

 

[Luther_Hull]

Some of you will be surprised to here that she was indeed found guilty. She was originally found not guilty by magistrates but then the CPS appealed and she was then found guilty, on the grounds that "the risk should only have to be apparent to a reasonably minded person". However, this is an old case and that rule is thankfully not in force any more, which it should have never been in the first place, the legal system should be aimed at punishing criminals who intentionally break the law, not mentally handicapped children.

I'll put up another case soon.