Posted on 06/22/2022 12:28:29 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
No, but it’s been a while.
So he was menatlly ill? Then he won’t really mind being in prison.
His lawyer has a problem with it.
“The judge has said the finding would qualify Rojas for an open-ended “involuntary mental commitment” instead of a lengthy prison term. He will head to a state mental health care facility instead of prison, where his attorneys said he will get the care he needs.” - NBC
So one day he’ll be found to be “all better” and ordered released. Were points taken off his driver’s license?
“He did it, so he is guilty, but insane so mental hospital instead of prison.”
But that is the outcome.
If sent to prison one day he could be paroled or released.
The irony here is that many on FR have argued that commission of a horrible crime must require someone to be mentally ill.
But in this case the mitigation of a mental illness was proven to the jury’s satisfaction and people are dissatisfied with the result.
Not exactly, ‘not guilty’ does not equal ‘guilty’.
I am just objecting to the terminology. It is really just a little peeve of mine.
He’s guilty, clearly he did it. Calling it ‘not guilty’ doesn’t sit with me.
But guilty because of mental illness covers all bases. Maybe it’s a legal point I am missing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.