This paper explores a short history of the mentally challenged in the legal system and makes comparisons between how the legal system treats subjects with borderline intellectual functioning and juveniles with normal intellectually functioning. The research contained in this paper amply proves the prevalence of nefarious consequences stemming from strict legal boundaries through two case study examples. The paper then proposes an experiment designed to prove that mentally challenged offenders do not meet the culpability standards set forth by the legal system. Conclusions drawn from the experiment are elaborated upon through their constitutional implications.