Child convicted of crime has very low iq and comprehension of things is not same as other in age group is there tests that can be given to find this out ? when and how should courts know to check for this issue before putting person on trial ?
These are issues that his lawyer should have spotted and requested a forensic evaluation from the court. They would have sent him to the forensic center to be tested for competency and criminal responsibility (two separate issues). He could get a second independent evaluation as well. If he was convicted without this being done, that could be grounds for appeal.
A child may be charged as an adult and convicted as such provided that the prosecution satisfies it burden of your particular jurisdiction. In PA, for example, a juvenile disposition is not an automatic right. A disposition in the juvenile system is advantageous and obviously preferred for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, juvenile adjudications, even those which result in a conviction, are not considered criminal convictions for the purposes of the accused’s permanent record. A juvenile conviction therefore does not impose the same stigma of a conviction in the adult system which can sometimes prevent a person from seeking certain types of employment or other academic or professional opportunities.
When the prosecution makes the decision to charge a juvenile as an adult, a court must make a determination as to whether the public’s interest is served by this type of disposition. A court will use the following factor in its determination: (1) the impact of the offense on the victim or victims; (2) the impact of the offense on the community; (3) the threat to the safety of the public or any individual posed by the minor; (4) the nature and circumstances of the offense allegedly committed by the minor; (5) the degree of the child's culpability; (6) the adequacy and duration of dispositional alternatives and in the adult criminal justice system; and (7) whether the minor is amenable to treatment, supervision or rehabilitation as a juvenile.
A minor’s amenability toward treatment requires that a psychologist or psychiatrist examine the accused and make a finding of amenability based on his or her (1) age; (2) mental capacity; (3) maturity; (4) the degree of criminal sophistication; (5) previous records, if any; (6) the nature and extent of any prior delinquent history, including the success or failure of any previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; (7) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court jurisdiction.
In many cases, the burden of establishing that a juvenile is not amenable toward treatment rests with the Commonwealth through the prosecution. The standard of proof that the court will apply to this burden is preponderance of the evidence which is a much lower standard than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the prosecution does bear the burden in many cases, there are cases in which the defense bears this burden of proof; these are cases which involve a deadly weapon or cases in which the minor was previously adjudicated delinquent of a crime that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult. Such crimes would include rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated assault, robbery, aggravated indecent assault, kidnapping, murder, voluntary manslaughter, an attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of these aforementioned crimes.
In conclusion, disposition is the juvenile system is not a right based one age. The prosecution is permitted to charge a juvenile as an adult. Disposition in the adult system carries with it the same consequences faced of any accused in that system regardless of age. The parents of minor’s with crime should be mindful of the prosecution’s discretion and retain counsel who can shepherd them through this process to minimize its effect on their child’s lifetime opportunities.
his attorney should have raise this issue prior to trial. Once that issue is race they normally send them to forensic to determine whether or not he's confident to stand trial.
I agree that it is something the attorney should have addressed before trial.
That said, the standard for competency and criminal responsibility are fairly low in Michigan. (I have heard attorneys jokingly say that a wet dishtowel can be found competent to stand trial). The question will be was he able to understand what he was doing was wrong at the time he did it, and will he be able to assist in his own defense. My advice would be to request a forensic evaluation if you re pre-trial. If it is post adjudication (and still within the appeal period) to have an appellate attorney look at the issue.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline