Want this question answered?
Actually no -people have been mentally damged for various reasons video games,videos or more.
The connection between right and wrong and the severity of a crime may be questionable when it comes to talking about someone who is mentally ill. The eighth amendment speaks against "cruel and unusual punishment" and in most cases it can be argued that a mentally handicap person being executed or imprisoned is against that right.
You have to call them a traiter
'[Someone] has executed the plan carefully.' For example: 'The engineer has executed the plan carefully.' 'Her boss has executed the plan carefully.' 'I have executed the plan carefully.'
Psychological Abuse
Most states would consider that to be mentally challenged.
Its not such a good idea to give a bow and arrow to someone who is mentally ill
"Mentally challenged" is a euphemism for mentally retarded, or having a low IQ or mental disabilities this means that someone who would be mentally challenged wouldn't do as well as their classmates. when your not physically disabled (wheelchair)
There are multiple reasons that people commit this terrible crime. -They could be mentally ill -They could have issues and be taking them out -They could have anger issues -They could be angry with an extremely disobedient pet -They could hit someone else's pet, to get back at them. Whatever the reason, hitting animals is a horrible act and should never be committed again.
Generally: A general POA would expire when the principal became incapacitated. If there is a durable POA that was executed when the principal was competent then someone must petition the court to be appointed the guardian. A court appointed guardianship would extinguish a durable POA.
It depends on what the outcome of the Baker Act examination was. If they were determined to be mentally fit, and released back into the community, then yes, they can. If they ended up being committed, they won't be able to.
I dont believe we have the technology (or physic ability) to do that yet!