I can clearly see why you/most of us would like the possible claim of diminished capacity not to figure in sentencing but "what if" he is assessed and judged to have a mental problem. Many of us here seem to think he has. He could spend a few years in a hospital (I have just read of a murderer whose Defence pleaded diminished capacity who was released after 3 years, though it was in the UK) and then be let out to enjoy the rest of his life as he wishes. That would be way short of what he deserves, ie a life sentence and no doubt in better conditions than an ordinary prison (maybe I am wrong there - lol). I would rather see him stuck in jail for many years for his hideous crime. Given that choice (though I appreciate it is an unknown), presently, I tend to hope that the assessment request fails but I may change my mind after reading a little more about it.
Perhaps I am missing something important here?? I highly value the legal competence of so many of you and consider myself "legally illiterate" in comparison.
I think it greatly depends on what he has and how it really affects him. When I think of diminished responsibility, I can't help but think of a woman who has been abused by her husband for years and kills him. And, just to be totally fair, I honestly believe diminished responsibility is so overused, its just ridiculous. We've heard every sob story imaginable - sometimes they are appropriate and applicable to determination but often they're not. Where do you draw the line? A hypothetical person commits murder and states he never would have done so were it not for the abuse he experienced as a child, his alcoholic parent, being a loner in school, being the middle child, not getting an allowance, etc?
As such, diminished responsibility has to be case by case. So what in this case rises to the level of diminished responsibility? He is a double amputee? Oscar has always fought to be treated no differently, until now. Quite obviously too, not every other double amputee commits murder. He's been diagnosed with GAD but he's neither paranoid or delusional so again, nothing that millions who never hurt anyone deal with. He lives in SA? He was afforded every opportunity for the best security imaginable and still was lax. He lost his mother young? Its horrible but we're not judging the actions of someone 15 years old.
So when does someone become responsible for their actions? He chose to own a firearm and sought to own many more. He was trained for said firearm. He damn well knew he was impulsive, had a temper, and provoked fear in others and he did absolutely nothing to seek any help and still refrains from accepting any culpability for doing so. Instead he's defiant, arrogant, insincere - lacks remorse, acts superior, is egocentric and displays a sense of entitlement.
So I just can't see diminished responsibility. He had so many opportunities afforded him over the course of his life others can only dream of. So much possibility to succeed - but like many who commit murder - was truly his own worst enemy.
All JMO
Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.