An offender's intellectual impairment does not compel moderation of specific deterrence in every case; the impairment is relevant to how specific deterrence may best be achieved, and where prospects of rehabilitation are bleak and previous lenient dispositions have failed, specific deterrence and community protection may properly be placed at the forefront of sentencing. Pre-planned offending by an intellectually impaired offender who appreciated the wrongfulness of their conduct does not warrant significant moderation of moral culpability. An offender's concern for family members requires evidence of emotional or psychological impact beyond the ordinary incidents of imprisonment to carry significant mitigating weight.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.