For those who didn't have time to read the whole thing, according to other articles online the guy would pretend to be the Parkland shooter and send messages to the victim's families.
> As examples of the messages, Fleury wrote, “I’m your abductor I’m kidnapping you fool;” “With the power of my AR-15 I take your loved ones away from you;” and “I’m the monster that killed your family,” according to the opinion.
What a horrible thing to do. His autism shouldn't give him a pass.
> It made a bit more sense when he heard Brandon’s account of what happened – his son admitted to almost everything straight away. Brandon told a federal investigator that he’d been inspired by an internet troll who went by the name of Lynn Ann. “Lynn Ann” was obsessed with one of the Columbine High School shooters, and achieved a small amount of fame online by posting messages on social media about how “ugly” the shooter’s victims had been. Brandon’s messages to the Parkland victims’ families had been “pure bullshit trolling” like Lynn Ann’s, he told the investigator. Brandon said he had become interested in internet trolls because they were “popular”.
> It was the same with “Shark Tale”. It made sense to Fleury that Brandon would mimic the language and behaviour of internet trolls without really understanding them. An expert on autism hired by the defence gave a similar assessment to the court.
> The prosecution pointed out that Brandon’s messages didn’t simply copy Lynn Ann’s phrases, but were crafted with specific information about the victims and made ongoing threats. Brandon maintained that he didn’t intend to hurt or scare people but to “annoy” them. When a psychiatrist hired by the prosecution asked if he was trying to cause the victims anguish, Brandon responded, “What’s anguish? It’s not something I know what it is.”
No one is denying that what he did is awful. The idea being discussed here is how to properly judge someone when they don't necessarily understand the wrong in what they are doing. You might want to believe or not that Brandon did it knowing the pain that it cause. But I have been around neurodiverse people in my life, and I saw how they where sometimes unable to understand that their behaviour could cause pain to other. The opposite was also true, where they could be deeply pained by what neurotypical people would consider a fairly normal behaviour.
Therefor, is it fair, is it just, to judge someone who doesn't understand the consequences of their action (or at least in the same proportion) in the same way that someone who does ? We already answered this a long time ago it seems, since the law for minor is usually different than for adult based on this exact principle. So how to we handle neurodiverse people has a modern society, it is an important question that bears asking.
> What a horrible thing to do. His autism shouldn't give him a pass.
As it was kind of explained that, 'trolls' are seen as cool in the online world and so he emulated that behavior. In fact one could say he went to the extreme. But his understanding of the context and emotional impact is nothing compared to us on the outside.
This isn't a case of him falsifying a condition to get off, this guy has his whole life documented with diagnoses. It's not a 'pass' but it's simply not the same situation and so it doesn't seem sincear to charge him as such.
The neurodiversity movement is rightfully credited with creating a world that's more tolerant of and accommodating to autistic traits.
But what's been lost in that discourse are the victims of autistic people's unintentional cruelty. Autistic people can be punitive, capricious, and neglectful toward their children (who did not enter into the relationship voluntarily), friends, and partners.
When these autistic people are confronted and asked to improve or make amends, the response is increasingly a demand that the victims adjust themselves to the autistic way and forget their own injuries, on the grounds that they were inflicted unintentionally.
I do see both sides here, but the fact remains that injuries cannot simply be waved away because they were inflicted unintentionally, by people whose psychology makes them prone to unintentionally hurt others.
I hear you on this. As always, there is a tendency to view all crime and criminals as "not the fault of the perpetrator, they were just misunderstood".
However, I don't think this article was suggesting we give people a pass, more that we need to think about how we handle some people's actions in light of what we know about neurodiversity. If we are locking people up partly to punish them and partly to prevent both them and others repeating that behaviour, then the people concerned have to understand what they've done wrong.
Does Brandon understand that he's done the wrong thing here? Would other neurodivergent people understand? If not, what should we do differently?
since autism is a spectrum it is really hard to know if it should give him a pass or not without a full read up.
although that he is able to do these things puts him on a much higher level than say my own son who will probably never be able to talk much less write messages of any sort.
I tend to agree. An involuntary crime tends to carry a smaller sentence because it's hinges upon the fact that the guilty person will have learned something from being tried and sentenced. They did something that doesn't fit into their set of morals. Humans learn from mistakes if there were consequences.
If the guilty person is unable to learn or understand, an involuntary crime is the same as a voluntary one: the perpetrator might do it again. So a sane sociopathic murderer and an autistic person (that is unable to understand) that thinks killing will make them popular carry the exact same risk to society.
Should an AI intelligent enough to hurt a person because it thought it might be a good idea but not "human" enough to understand the implications of it earn a free pass?
No but it should be considered when prosecuting and sentencing - 5 years in a prison for someone with severe autism is a much harsher sentence than for someone without.
The article makes the comparison with Navinder Sarao - another autistic person they thought was behind a $1trn market-manipulation scheme. Luckily he worked with the FBI, and the prosecutors recommended no prison time (he was sentenced to one year home confinement)
Not saying what he did wasn't wrong, but this does sound very autistic.
But I literally don't understand bullying. If people say something mean to me it doesn't seem to mean anything, I just hear words? There's no emotional impact there. In fact I was bullied pretty badly in school, but I used to encourage it because I saw how happy it made people and it never really bothered me.
But obviously we largely treat others how we want to be treated ourselves so when I was younger it was common for me to say nasty things to people for "laughs". I didn't really understand I was hurting them because what I was saying wouldn't have hurt me. I wasn't trying to be mean (not that that should excuse me) I just thought it was funny saying stuff that was inappropriate I guess?
The messed up thing is that I still feel like this... I find places like 4chan hilarious and I think it's a good example of "autistic humour" in the sense that I don't think most people there are trying to be mean they just have a perspective and sense of humour that neurotypical people don't really get.
I know some people might think this has nothing to do with autism and maybe I'm just a mean person, and struggle with that because I think most people who know me well would say the opposite. I really care about people's feelings I just don't always understand why they feel the way they do about things which means I unintentionally hurt people a lot.
Perspective like yours have been hard for me. I'm aware of a lot of stories like this where autistic people have been locked in cages for saying things neurotypicals don't find pleasant. And when I argue they're just words and someone shouldn't be locked in a cage for saying words I get attacked for being insensitive. I struggle with whether I'm the one with the problem here or if it's actually everyone else. Logically I don't understand why neurotypicals care about words as much as they do and wish I didn't have to self-censor to appease neurotypical sensitivities, but I also accept I'm not normal and therefore should try accommodate neurotypical behaviours and norms as best I can.
But I'm not going to lie, my immediate thought here was "who cares what he said, that doesn't mean you get to lock someone in a cage?!". Intuitively I honestly feel like you're the one being mean here, but I know that's because I don't understand your perspective. I just have to assume those words hurt as much as being locked in a cage for 5 and half years to someone who's neurotypical, otherwise it seems extremely cruel.
Still, as out of touch as I am I can't imagine myself saying these things to victims families. It seems so pointless and cruel. But if I had to guess I assume he just didn't understand how hurtful what he was saying was, but saw humour in the inappropriateness of it. Again, not saying he doesn't deserve to be locked in a cage for 5 and a half years for being mean, but I can see how he might not have understood how what he was saying was hurting people.
(Creating a throwaway account to respond to this post rather than use my regular HN account)
I see the comments about what the kid did being abhorrent and that autism should not excuse it. I understand where these commenters are coming from. But allow me to tell you what you're missing.
I'm the parent of an autistic pre-teen. He's "high functioning" because he can talk, read, write, do math and goes to a regular school. But I can totally see him doing something stupid and insensitive like this. The problem is there are several things he just doesn't understand no matter how many times you explain it to him. There are echoes of this problem in the article:
> He [Brandon] just doesn’t understand why he’s still in prison.
> Brandon recently started writing letters to the prison warden and to Judge Ruiz, asking to be let out. “Brandon, that’s just not going to work,” Fleury tells him. But he has to keep explaining it. These days they have the same conversations, over and over, round and round, and get nowhere: Brandon just doesn’t understand.
It's obvious to us that sending such hateful, hurtful messages is wrong. But some autistic brains simply do not understand this. Here are some things my kid does not understand no matter how many times we explain it to him:
* If someone doesn't want to include you (e.g. in their Minecraft server, or party), there is no point in crashing in uninvited.
* You don't say to someone every day that they stink (have BO).
* You can go to the bathroom when you're at your piano teacher's house.
* Just because one Chinese girl bullied you does not mean all people of Chinese origin are evil.
If you haven't experienced interactions with such an autistic person, you would not believe there exists anyone who doesn't get something so basic. Even if you've met several autistic people, it's possible you haven't met someone with this specific blindspot.
So yes, if I were the judge in Brandon's case, I'd be more lenient.
> I'm the parent of an autistic pre-teen. He's "high functioning" because he can talk, read, write, do math and goes to a regular school. But I can totally see him doing something stupid and insensitive like this. The problem is there are several things he just doesn't understand no matter how many times you explain it to him. There are echoes of this problem in the article:
Would you say your kid is otherwise very caring and sensitive though?
Your comment makes your kid sound mean, but I'm guessing that's not the case at all. For example I'm sure it's common for him to say means things to people he deeply loves simply because he doesn't understand the weight of what he's saying? "You look fat in that", etc.
I just think this is an important point to stress because autistic people aren't monsters. They're usually very loving people who just see things differently.
It might be obvious to others that something was "wrong" but also against some of the wrongs there are laws. Could be useful to explain this guy that he broke a law by doing it? So instead of explaining the feelings part, to insist on the technicalities - also how to avoid it in the future (if it applies)?
I would be extremely more lenient also and I would also try to do something as a judge or as a lawyer before I was a judge to change the way the system works to for there to be some sort of early intervention if a perpetrator I guess would be the term is suspected or known of being on the spectrum or have ADHD. Both of these things benefit greatly from early and frequent and consistent intervention. Not hiding things behind the scenes building up a case and then all of a sudden blowing down a door and then arresting them that is the worst thing.
This is really interesting, thank you. I had never heard your highlighted point that a child won't understand despite multiple reminders. On a personal level that sounds incredibly difficult and heartbreaking to deal with.
As a HN commentator do you have ideas for how society should work with regards to this issue? Especially regarding preventing harmful situations where parents of autistic children aren't able to provide enough support.
Prison is not just about the person. Action of that person needs to be taken care of. But I also think that prison is not about punishment. So prison will not work for this person. He should be taken care of by some other institution.
Interesting related trivia. Simon Baron-Cohen, the psychologist mentioned in the article, is cousin of Sascha Baron-Cohen: the actor who plays Borat and Ali-G. Their family contains an unusually high quantity of professional creatives (actors, screenwriters, artists). I remember spending a non-trivial amount of time in college around ~Y2K in psychology lectures on the similar overlapping skills required between a successful artist and a successful psychologist, looking at their family in particular.
I think it's the classic formula: rich person marries artsy person, children get to engage in artsy pursuits with little regard for the here and now of paying their heating bill.
> Darius McCollum [...] In 2015 he was charged with stealing a Greyhound bus. The judge accepted his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, based on his autism, but sent him indefinitely to a mental institution.
Ah but it's worse than that
> In October 2018, a Judge ruled that Darius was dangerously mentally ill. In New York State, after a “mentally unfit” plea, a judge decides how dangerous a defendant is. There are three options. “Track 1” - the most dangerous, to “Track 3” - for non violent offenders. Darius’ attorney fought for him to be designated as a “Track 3” offender, meaning he could receive services while retaining some freedom. The judge, however, ruled that Darius was “Track 1,” the most dangerous assignation available. This was against the recommendation of the state’s psychiatrists, who all testified that Darius is not dangerous and should be “Track 3.”
Would've expected the Hannibal Lecter treatment to be dependent on a prior record of violence.
The story of Darius McCollum is brilliant and tragic at the same time, he was trained on the side by the drivers who were fascinated how much he enjoyed the trains and they let him drive them while they would go off for lunch or whatever.
He was arrested so many times though and wouldn't hire him for those reasons but always felt a bit cruel.
Couldn't he be trained to be a responsible train or bus driver? It's a shame not to let society benefit from this kind of passion.
I once knew a homeless guy who desperately wanted to become a metro driver. He got into a training program, then someone else revealed that he was homeless, and he got kicked out. That sort of thing is just tragic and destructive.
Of course in the case of an autistic person, it's not a given that he will be able to carry the responsibility for driving such a vehicle, but I say it's worth at least trying, and finding some spot for him.
This title is clickbait. A man harassed the victims of a mass murderer and happened to be autistic. Here's a hot take: if you're not mentally competent to be held responsible for the crimes you commit using a tool like a computer or a gun, you should not have access to that tool.
If you go there, then the blame should be placed on the parent, not the kid, since he was the one giving access to "the tool". But this is a serious lack of empathy. Being the parent of a neurodiverse child is difficult. The first thing is that you cannot relate to him in the way that you can with a neurotypical child. You have to understand the full spectrum of his differences, but how can you ? This is a job psychiatrist already struggle to do.
You can observe your child, ask him question and infer based on those observation, but that will not necessarily give you the full picture.
The article is a prime exemple, the kid was "happy" and never displayed before the behaviour that landed him in trouble with the law, so how the father should have expected that his child might go online and say horrible thing ? And to be fair, the same is often true even for neurotypical child.
Agree. And ultimately this does happen under various legal frameworks around the globe.
The trouble is I suspect this man did have the capacity to understand what he was doing and what it was doing to the victims. And so he appears legally culpable.
At the very core of criminal justice rests an assumption, that is false.
> The concept of criminal justice rests on the fundamental principle that we are responsible for our own behavior.
Human behavior is the result of lots of factors, none of which they have control over. evolution, culture, prenatal environment, uprising and more shape human behavior and what they want and need. This is true for good as well as bad behavior.
Harrowing. Something good coming from that well written article is
that, despite knowing many autistic people and thinking I know a
little about it, I now have a better understanding of autism. There
are many angles and interpretations given. It was worth the read.
The 4channers are aware of this kind of thing. I'm sure I've seen comments like 'that's some special kind of autism there' in reply to something like the manifesto of a to be mass murderer.
4chan itself - or at least a lot of the memes I've seen - is proud of the "autistic trolls" monikers; I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was on there and encouraged by the others.
You can be frustrated with autistic people when they do terrible things, but at the end of the day, if they're low functioning, you have to realize they're not playing with a full deck of cards.
You can't be against institutional oppression while supporting the punishment of the differently abled.
There seems to be a lot of people in this comment section that have had bad experiences with autistic trolls. That's really unfortunate, but the answer isn't to use the law and try to make them an example - that's almost certainly punching down.
Imagine if every bank robber, rapist, drunk driver, etc could say they shouldn't be held to the same standards as others because they have a mental condition that caused them to do what they did. It works sometimes if you're rich enough, like the guy who claimed affluenza for killing someone while drunk driving.
Imagine if we actually asked for evidence of those claims instead of accepting them at face value… geez, that’d be a completely different situation, wouldn’t it?
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onigiri420|3 years ago|reply
For those who didn't have time to read the whole thing, according to other articles online the guy would pretend to be the Parkland shooter and send messages to the victim's families.
> As examples of the messages, Fleury wrote, “I’m your abductor I’m kidnapping you fool;” “With the power of my AR-15 I take your loved ones away from you;” and “I’m the monster that killed your family,” according to the opinion.
What a horrible thing to do. His autism shouldn't give him a pass.
[+] [-] maeln|3 years ago|reply
> It was the same with “Shark Tale”. It made sense to Fleury that Brandon would mimic the language and behaviour of internet trolls without really understanding them. An expert on autism hired by the defence gave a similar assessment to the court.
> The prosecution pointed out that Brandon’s messages didn’t simply copy Lynn Ann’s phrases, but were crafted with specific information about the victims and made ongoing threats. Brandon maintained that he didn’t intend to hurt or scare people but to “annoy” them. When a psychiatrist hired by the prosecution asked if he was trying to cause the victims anguish, Brandon responded, “What’s anguish? It’s not something I know what it is.”
No one is denying that what he did is awful. The idea being discussed here is how to properly judge someone when they don't necessarily understand the wrong in what they are doing. You might want to believe or not that Brandon did it knowing the pain that it cause. But I have been around neurodiverse people in my life, and I saw how they where sometimes unable to understand that their behaviour could cause pain to other. The opposite was also true, where they could be deeply pained by what neurotypical people would consider a fairly normal behaviour. Therefor, is it fair, is it just, to judge someone who doesn't understand the consequences of their action (or at least in the same proportion) in the same way that someone who does ? We already answered this a long time ago it seems, since the law for minor is usually different than for adult based on this exact principle. So how to we handle neurodiverse people has a modern society, it is an important question that bears asking.
[+] [-] bilekas|3 years ago|reply
As it was kind of explained that, 'trolls' are seen as cool in the online world and so he emulated that behavior. In fact one could say he went to the extreme. But his understanding of the context and emotional impact is nothing compared to us on the outside.
This isn't a case of him falsifying a condition to get off, this guy has his whole life documented with diagnoses. It's not a 'pass' but it's simply not the same situation and so it doesn't seem sincear to charge him as such.
[+] [-] m_fayer|3 years ago|reply
But what's been lost in that discourse are the victims of autistic people's unintentional cruelty. Autistic people can be punitive, capricious, and neglectful toward their children (who did not enter into the relationship voluntarily), friends, and partners.
When these autistic people are confronted and asked to improve or make amends, the response is increasingly a demand that the victims adjust themselves to the autistic way and forget their own injuries, on the grounds that they were inflicted unintentionally.
I do see both sides here, but the fact remains that injuries cannot simply be waved away because they were inflicted unintentionally, by people whose psychology makes them prone to unintentionally hurt others.
[+] [-] gattilorenz|3 years ago|reply
That’s mentioned in this article as well, and with some of the exact quotes you reported.
The article doesn’t say that what he did is not horrible, nor that autism should grant him a pass (in the sense of freedom from any consequence).
[+] [-] blowski|3 years ago|reply
However, I don't think this article was suggesting we give people a pass, more that we need to think about how we handle some people's actions in light of what we know about neurodiversity. If we are locking people up partly to punish them and partly to prevent both them and others repeating that behaviour, then the people concerned have to understand what they've done wrong.
Does Brandon understand that he's done the wrong thing here? Would other neurodivergent people understand? If not, what should we do differently?
[+] [-] googlryas|3 years ago|reply
What should happen is his caretakers should ensure he can't do the things he does. But punishing him doesn't make much sense.
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|3 years ago|reply
since autism is a spectrum it is really hard to know if it should give him a pass or not without a full read up.
although that he is able to do these things puts him on a much higher level than say my own son who will probably never be able to talk much less write messages of any sort.
[+] [-] sph|3 years ago|reply
If the guilty person is unable to learn or understand, an involuntary crime is the same as a voluntary one: the perpetrator might do it again. So a sane sociopathic murderer and an autistic person (that is unable to understand) that thinks killing will make them popular carry the exact same risk to society.
Should an AI intelligent enough to hurt a person because it thought it might be a good idea but not "human" enough to understand the implications of it earn a free pass?
[+] [-] xorfish|3 years ago|reply
You do understand that he doesn't understand that this is a horrible thing to do?
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|3 years ago|reply
No but it should be considered when prosecuting and sentencing - 5 years in a prison for someone with severe autism is a much harsher sentence than for someone without.
The article makes the comparison with Navinder Sarao - another autistic person they thought was behind a $1trn market-manipulation scheme. Luckily he worked with the FBI, and the prosecutors recommended no prison time (he was sentenced to one year home confinement)
[+] [-] kypro|3 years ago|reply
But I literally don't understand bullying. If people say something mean to me it doesn't seem to mean anything, I just hear words? There's no emotional impact there. In fact I was bullied pretty badly in school, but I used to encourage it because I saw how happy it made people and it never really bothered me.
But obviously we largely treat others how we want to be treated ourselves so when I was younger it was common for me to say nasty things to people for "laughs". I didn't really understand I was hurting them because what I was saying wouldn't have hurt me. I wasn't trying to be mean (not that that should excuse me) I just thought it was funny saying stuff that was inappropriate I guess?
The messed up thing is that I still feel like this... I find places like 4chan hilarious and I think it's a good example of "autistic humour" in the sense that I don't think most people there are trying to be mean they just have a perspective and sense of humour that neurotypical people don't really get.
I know some people might think this has nothing to do with autism and maybe I'm just a mean person, and struggle with that because I think most people who know me well would say the opposite. I really care about people's feelings I just don't always understand why they feel the way they do about things which means I unintentionally hurt people a lot.
Perspective like yours have been hard for me. I'm aware of a lot of stories like this where autistic people have been locked in cages for saying things neurotypicals don't find pleasant. And when I argue they're just words and someone shouldn't be locked in a cage for saying words I get attacked for being insensitive. I struggle with whether I'm the one with the problem here or if it's actually everyone else. Logically I don't understand why neurotypicals care about words as much as they do and wish I didn't have to self-censor to appease neurotypical sensitivities, but I also accept I'm not normal and therefore should try accommodate neurotypical behaviours and norms as best I can.
But I'm not going to lie, my immediate thought here was "who cares what he said, that doesn't mean you get to lock someone in a cage?!". Intuitively I honestly feel like you're the one being mean here, but I know that's because I don't understand your perspective. I just have to assume those words hurt as much as being locked in a cage for 5 and half years to someone who's neurotypical, otherwise it seems extremely cruel.
Still, as out of touch as I am I can't imagine myself saying these things to victims families. It seems so pointless and cruel. But if I had to guess I assume he just didn't understand how hurtful what he was saying was, but saw humour in the inappropriateness of it. Again, not saying he doesn't deserve to be locked in a cage for 5 and a half years for being mean, but I can see how he might not have understood how what he was saying was hurting people.
[+] [-] autismparent|3 years ago|reply
I see the comments about what the kid did being abhorrent and that autism should not excuse it. I understand where these commenters are coming from. But allow me to tell you what you're missing.
I'm the parent of an autistic pre-teen. He's "high functioning" because he can talk, read, write, do math and goes to a regular school. But I can totally see him doing something stupid and insensitive like this. The problem is there are several things he just doesn't understand no matter how many times you explain it to him. There are echoes of this problem in the article:
> He [Brandon] just doesn’t understand why he’s still in prison.
> Brandon recently started writing letters to the prison warden and to Judge Ruiz, asking to be let out. “Brandon, that’s just not going to work,” Fleury tells him. But he has to keep explaining it. These days they have the same conversations, over and over, round and round, and get nowhere: Brandon just doesn’t understand.
It's obvious to us that sending such hateful, hurtful messages is wrong. But some autistic brains simply do not understand this. Here are some things my kid does not understand no matter how many times we explain it to him: * If someone doesn't want to include you (e.g. in their Minecraft server, or party), there is no point in crashing in uninvited. * You don't say to someone every day that they stink (have BO). * You can go to the bathroom when you're at your piano teacher's house. * Just because one Chinese girl bullied you does not mean all people of Chinese origin are evil.
If you haven't experienced interactions with such an autistic person, you would not believe there exists anyone who doesn't get something so basic. Even if you've met several autistic people, it's possible you haven't met someone with this specific blindspot.
So yes, if I were the judge in Brandon's case, I'd be more lenient.
[+] [-] kypro|3 years ago|reply
Would you say your kid is otherwise very caring and sensitive though?
Your comment makes your kid sound mean, but I'm guessing that's not the case at all. For example I'm sure it's common for him to say means things to people he deeply loves simply because he doesn't understand the weight of what he's saying? "You look fat in that", etc.
I just think this is an important point to stress because autistic people aren't monsters. They're usually very loving people who just see things differently.
[+] [-] soco|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] navjack27|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badcppdev|3 years ago|reply
As a HN commentator do you have ideas for how society should work with regards to this issue? Especially regarding preventing harmful situations where parents of autistic children aren't able to provide enough support.
[+] [-] timeon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonjgreen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] googlryas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angrycontrarian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xcdzvyn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] formerly_proven|3 years ago|reply
Ah but it's worse than that
> In October 2018, a Judge ruled that Darius was dangerously mentally ill. In New York State, after a “mentally unfit” plea, a judge decides how dangerous a defendant is. There are three options. “Track 1” - the most dangerous, to “Track 3” - for non violent offenders. Darius’ attorney fought for him to be designated as a “Track 3” offender, meaning he could receive services while retaining some freedom. The judge, however, ruled that Darius was “Track 1,” the most dangerous assignation available. This was against the recommendation of the state’s psychiatrists, who all testified that Darius is not dangerous and should be “Track 3.”
Would've expected the Hannibal Lecter treatment to be dependent on a prior record of violence.
[+] [-] rippercushions|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zozbot234|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bilekas|3 years ago|reply
He was arrested so many times though and wouldn't hire him for those reasons but always felt a bit cruel.
[+] [-] mcv|3 years ago|reply
I once knew a homeless guy who desperately wanted to become a metro driver. He got into a training program, then someone else revealed that he was homeless, and he got kicked out. That sort of thing is just tragic and destructive.
Of course in the case of an autistic person, it's not a given that he will be able to carry the responsibility for driving such a vehicle, but I say it's worth at least trying, and finding some spot for him.
[+] [-] causi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maeln|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] psychphysic|3 years ago|reply
The trouble is I suspect this man did have the capacity to understand what he was doing and what it was doing to the victims. And so he appears legally culpable.
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xorfish|3 years ago|reply
> The concept of criminal justice rests on the fundamental principle that we are responsible for our own behavior.
Human behavior is the result of lots of factors, none of which they have control over. evolution, culture, prenatal environment, uprising and more shape human behavior and what they want and need. This is true for good as well as bad behavior.
[+] [-] nonrandomstring|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] totetsu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tb_technical|3 years ago|reply
You can't be against institutional oppression while supporting the punishment of the differently abled.
There seems to be a lot of people in this comment section that have had bad experiences with autistic trolls. That's really unfortunate, but the answer isn't to use the law and try to make them an example - that's almost certainly punching down.
[+] [-] psychphysic|3 years ago|reply
That's case closed in my book.
Should he get bespoke support to avoid recidivism and encourage rehabilitation? Yes, absolutely everyone should in prison.
[+] [-] 13324|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] encryptluks2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gattilorenz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goodpoint|3 years ago|reply
...and receive effective therapy instead of punishment?
Yes, I can imagine it and that would be a much better world.
[+] [-] woofyman|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nigerianbrince|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yCloser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cuteboy19|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinking_monkey|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jamesholden|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]