Wisconsin girl in stabbing attack in Slenderman case changes plea
Source: Reuters
One of the two Wisconsin girls accused of attacking a classmate to please a fictional character named Slenderman changed her plea to not guilty due to mental illness on Friday, according to court records.
Anissa Weier and Morgan Geyser were charged with attempted first-degree homicide in the May 2014 stabbing attack in Waukesha, a suburb of Milwaukee. All three girls were 12 years old at the time of the stabbing. Weier and Geyser, who will be tried as adults, are now 14. [L1N1AD1NL]
Weier changed her plea from not guilty to not guilty by reason of "mental disease or defect" in a Waukesha County Circuit Court according to online court records filed on Friday. The change of plea was entered by Maura McMahon, one of Weier's attorneys.
Judge Michale Bohren ordered that Weier be evaluated by two doctors by Oct. 6, court records showed. The next hearing for Weier and Geyser is scheduled for Oct. 13.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wisconsin-crime-idUSKCN11F1DK
U.S. | Fri Sep 9, 2016 5:05pm EDT
By Brendan O'Brien | MILWAUKEE
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
metroins
(2,550 posts)I understand the severity, but this is nuts.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)Anyone age 10 or older who faces first-degree attempted intentional homicide in Wisconsin is automatically considered an adult.
I feel sorry for children.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)I feel sorry for the girls who did it pretty much everything about this sucks.
cstanleytech
(28,167 posts)why didnt her lawyer file that plea in the first place?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Even in Wisconsin, which tends toward trying kids as adults for heinous crimes, there are many laws that restrict children's behavior on the basis that they aren't psychologically well enough developed to participate/ or to make decisions... gun purchases, marriage contracts, various financial obligations, alcohol consumption, dropping out of school...
IMO a lawyer sort of has to go with the best defense they can. Sometimes that is not a great choice and other people won't believe or accept it. But I think there is an argument to be made that a 12 year old shouldn't be tried as an adult due to severity of the offense, a 12 year old should only be tried as an adult if they are adequately developed to function as an adult.
For many things, Wisconsin law and WI society just don't seem to believe 12 year olds can make decisions like adults. IMO, there's an arguable point to be made, even if it has low probability of success, that the girls shouldn't be tried as adults.
In my mind, this isn't really as far out as the "twinkie defense" claim that a junk food diet increased blood sugar and contributed to cognitive impairment.
cstanleytech
(28,167 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And maybe because the parents had trouble coming to terms with the application of such a defense. I suspect that the parents were more hoping for options to try to negotiate with the prosecutor.
At any rate, it seems there wasn't any mental health dx for her at the time she was charged and held over.
Options for defense have been very constrained as there is little doubt both girls participated in the attack. The defense approach had been an attempt to move the case to juvenile court where the court finding would still probably be guilty but punishments less severe. That has failed and the pursuit of an alternative defense has through the process of elimination become much more important.
Sometime along the way, her defense team found a clinician that gave them a diagnosis that provided something to work with. That dx will now be evaluated and challenged.
A long shot is sometimes the best defense because it is the only defense available; everyone is entitled to their best defense.
cstanleytech
(28,167 posts)
I am not her lawyer.ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)A lot of people consider mental illness to have a stigma attached to it. They might think it reflects on the family as a whole.
The parents might have been in denial, thinking some other possibility would present itself. People refuse to face all sorts of reality-based stuff that makes them feel uncomfortable -- look at Drumpf's supporters to see the effect on a grander scale.
Sometimes people eventually accept reality. Some can never bring themselves to see the world (or a given situation) as it is.
The threat of impending loss of something or someone emotionally significant (such as a daughter) can sometimes impel people to face reality as the impending consequences draw closer. Probably the parents didn't want to consider a mental illness defense due to a perceived stigma, but eventually saw the writing on the wall and accepted it.
Then again, maybe they just didn't think they could plead insanity without a diagnosis, and it took some time to get that.
The mind-changing just doesn't seem that odd to me. Think back, you must've seen people change their minds often enough.
Whiskeytide
(4,625 posts)... before having an expert opinion that verifies it, the prosecutor will paint it as a BS "defense tactic". Make it look like your expert was paid to say what the lawyer wanted him/her to say since the lawyer pled it before the expert examined the defendant. Nothing more, I suspect.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Why are these girls on trial instead of treatment?
I guess that's why human rights groups keeps us on their watch lists.
christx30
(6,241 posts)They are going to focus on the act itself, and the "why" is going to be used as a defense. They have to have the trial in any case. They can't just say "Oh, you're crazy? No problem. We'll have you out of here and into a straight jacket within 20 minutes."
No. They get their day in court to present their defense. They get doctors on both sides arguing their case. A judge or a jury will make the determination. Nothing wrong with due process.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)i live in a nearby county that fights for that title.
It has been my experience that the expectation of a fair trial is very limited here.
the mindset is that if the police said they did it---throw the damn book at em.
the prosecution wants a show trial with a pre programed jury that will show up nightly on nancy grace and get them a book deal or at least guest spots on fox.
it they could get away with it...these girls would be burned at the stake on live tv
the defense was dealt a bad hand from a marked deck
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....that they didn't stab the victim? That someone else did? I didn't think who committed the physical act of brutally stabbing this child was in question.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)if you are old enuf to be tried as an adult shouldn't you be at least old enuf to drive a car? or get into an r movie?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Was stabbed get justice? Or does she? Or is that concern not even on the table?
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Bringing a person to justice presupposes that they were culpable for their crimes and had a choice in committing them. Some types of mental illness, by their very nature, removes culpability because it removes choice and free will. Our justice system punishes intent more than action, and if you don't have free will, you cannot have intent.
What happened to the victim was tragic, but justice is about punishing those who choose to be negligent, or do harm, or put their own interests or desires above others. If a severe mental illness removes free will, then no choice has occurred, and no measure of guilt should be applied. Nobody CHOOSES to be severely mentally ill.
At this point, the question is simply whether they were REALLY mentally ill, or whether they are using that as an excuse to avoid punishment.
christx30
(6,241 posts)the last thing I want to hear is "the person that tried to murder you was mentally ill, so he won't face any kind of prosecution for what he did. But don't worry, he's going to get the help he needs."
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Victims usually want vengeance or revenge. They want to get even or "hurt them the way they hurt me".
Punishment is not justice. Punishment CAN BE justice, or can be an aspect of getting justice in some situations and with some crimes, but to say that you can't have justice without punishment is to miss the point of what "justice" really is.
Our legal system punishes intent, not action. Look at these three situations. Someone is driving down the road, reaches down to change the radio station, and runs over a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk, killing them instantly. Someone is driving down the road, sees a pedestrian crossing, and runs then down on purpose because they don't like their skin color. Someone is driving down the road, has a seizure behind the wheel, and runs down a pedestrian because they lose control of their vehicle.
In all three situations, the same physical action takes place. A car is traveling down the road, fails to stop for a pedestrian in the sidewalk, and that failure kills the pedestrian. Lets reiterate that last bit...in all three, the victim is just as dead. And yet, the first driver will probably end up facing some kind of negligent homicide charge and will get a few years in prison, while the second driver will face first degree murder charges and the third driver probably won't face any charges at all. The difference is intent. The first driver didn't intend to kill anyone, but allowed his negligence and inattention to cause harm. The driver will be punished for that negligence. The second driver, on the other hand, is a cold blooded murderer. And the third? That driver had no control at all. Not only was there no intent, but there was nothing the driver could have done to stop it.
And that's why victims, survivors and their families don't get to pick punishments. It's not the action or the outcome that matters, but the intent of the accused. The family of the pedestrian killed by the seizing driver will be grieving just as much as the family of the pedestrian killed by the racist murderer, and will likely demand similar justice, but to give that to them would be the height of injustice because they are radically different situations.
When the severely mentally ill commit crimes, they tend to have more in common with the third example than the second. It's a tragedy for the victim, but the crime is often driven by the physical illness and not the conscious decisions or negligence of the perpetrator. Nobody chooses mental illness, and when the mentally ill commit crimes, the appropriate societal response is treatment and not incarceration.
24601
(4,132 posts)were outlawed following the decision of Biemel v. State in 1855.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution
Sand Rat Expat
(290 posts)A 12-year-old is perfectly capable of knowing that it is wrong to stab another person. Most of us learn not to physically assault others before we even make it to school, let alone by the time we're in middle school. I realize that the human brain doesn't fully mature until around age 25, but by 12 a child is old enough and developed enough to understand that attempted premeditated murder is wrong. These girls' age is absolutely no excuse.
That being said, if mental healthcare professionals deem that she is indeed mentally ill to the point that she is unable to discern right from wrong, that changes things, because in that scenario her age has nothing to do with her impaired judgment.
Genuine mental illness is a mitigating factor here. Age is not.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)period
Sand Rat Expat
(290 posts)The legal system does not concur with said opinion. Once again, a 12-year-old should be fully expected to know that it is wrong to plan a murder, lure the victim into place, and then attempt to kill that victim. Their brains are not yet fully developed, but they are certainly sufficiently developed to grasp the fact that such behavior is wrong.
And once again, if mental healthcare professionals determine that the two would-be murderers are mentally ill, then they require treatment. If they're not determined to be mentally ill, they need to be charged as adults, have their day in court, and, if convicted, go to prison as a consequence of their depravity.
Being twelve is absolutely no excuse for attempted premeditated homicide.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)there is a juvenile system in wisconsin that ain't no picnic.......
12 year old is a 12 year old
what is legal and what is just really has little in common anymore...shame really