[citizenK]

One more time...

I have conceded, in previous comments to IronEagle, that the judge may in fact have acted meritously in this case. However, I remain skeptical about courts "evaluating" people and the use of mental competency to take away people's rights. Are the defendant's rights in this case being taken away? Maybe not. Again, a point conceded to IronEagle previously, we don't know all of the facts of the case, and why the man has been in jail for 33 days.

The author of this article raises two issues. First is the development of the "evaluating" industry. Second is the potential for abuse and the precedent that evaluating defendants in such a manner suggests.

He is being "evaluated" because he thinks differently than most people (judge's words, not mine). Doesn't every criminal think "differently" about the law, hence they are willing to break laws? Can you not see how this system can be abused, especially in the context of crimes committed because of underlying political beliefs? Look at some of the responses in this thread - people want to persecute and/or disregard the rights of this man because of what he believes, and even worse, for how he looks.

[Poohbah]

He is being "evaluated" because he thinks differently than most people (judge's words, not mine). Doesn't every criminal think "differently" about the law, hence they are willing to break laws? Can you not see how this system can be abused, especially in the context of crimes committed because of underlying political beliefs? Look at some of the responses in this thread - people want to persecute and/or disregard the rights of this man because of what he believes, and even worse, for how he looks.

According to my personal interpretation of the Constitution, you owe me $1,000,000,000 a day. Pay up or else.

[justshe]

1)What rights does this man lose by being evaluated?
2)Since bail was allowed, he doesn't have to sit in jail, so why is he?
3)Since it is NOT the judge doing the evaluation, are you suggesting collusion between the courts and the mental health department with your comment..."potential for abuse and the precedent that evaluating defendants in such a manner suggests" ?
4) Do you not see that the judge, in ordering this evaluation, is protecting the rights of this individual? What if he IS mentally impaired?
5)Why do you automatically assign an 'industry' based on other comments on this thread from someone who lives in Josephine county, giving you the 'facts' of the Josephine County budget (facts the author of this piece either lied about or exaggerated)?