you wrote "And it's my opinion that it's the judges duty to apply the law." to which i entirely agree
as a fellow texan (not native, merely an immigrant but proudly from chicago rather than some less enlightened northern or far western city) the demon that talks through my left ear to my right brain is inspiring me to ask you what you though of the paris judge's decision to sentence a retarded 18 year old to over a 100 years for inappropriate sex play with a 6 year old that looked to me from the sidelines that it wouldn't have been a terrible problem if the 18 year old had been physically 6 years old rather than just mentally 6 years old.
my remarks on that case agree most with the defense attorney who was flabbergasted that mental competence legal letters were not equipped to address retardation instead of a psychosis that he probably would have won the case with if the defendant had actually hurt or killed the kid instead of just freaking out the kid's mom when she found them embracing however they were embracing.
In my opinion the judge wasn't wrong because he nor the jury had any knowledge of the defendants diminished mental capacity. That blame lies with the original defense attorney for not pursuing expert testimony. I'm confident the defendant will win on appeal as he should.
Mentally retarded Texas teen serving 100-year prison term for sex assault of boy - chicagotribune.com
it's been a few months but i distinctly recall a defense attorney complaining about not being able to present a diminished capacity defense that had any weight because of the wording of existing case law as i paraphrased above. hence i won't know know if you or i am mistaken about that important point until i look at the archives.
i also remember that that there was a bad understanding between the judge and jury where they returned a maximum penalty on all counts because they thought the terms would be run concurrent. it was the judge's ruling of consecutive sentences that earned the case it's 15 andy warhol minutes in history.
the most important point is that the punishment does not fit the crime --- if any crime was even committed. clearly somebody screwed up on that one.
that is also the main point in the original case discussed. those guards nearly beat that man to death. there is usually no good justification for doing that in a well run modern american prison, even if he was flinging a bar of soap in a sock at them.