Jeff Matthews Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Interesting article on an opinion out of the US SCt affirming a state's abolition of the insanity defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Yea but...I did not shoot my wife and two daughters and MIL to death. Even though I had too many twinkies. BTW Luv your equipment list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Sargent Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 I don't have much faith in the judicial system whether I'm crazy or not. It's a flip of the coin and it doesn't matter what defense you choose. There are crazy people out there and they do commit crimes. Mental institutions, do they still exist? Jeff, what do you think about the article? Should people be allowed to plead insanity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, JL Sargent said: I don't have much faith in the judicial system whether I'm crazy or not. It's a flip of the coin and it doesn't matter what defense you choose. There are crazy people out there and they do commit crimes. Mental institutions, do they still exist? Jeff, what do you think about the article? Should people be allowed to plead insanity? Murder requires intent (mostly, but let's not get into the weeds). The defense's argument, if insanity is not a statutory defense to the crime, is that, "He was insane and didn't have the required intent." The prosecution's rebuttal is that, "He was crazy, alright, but he dang sure intended to kill them." The classic defense of insanity is that if the person is incapable of knowing right from wrong, he cannot form the required intent as a matter of law. In many cases, this distinction might not make a difference. If the jury hates the defendant, they will find he was not insane. If they like the defendant for whatever reason, they will agree he's insane and spare him. As a defendant, though, you sure feel a lot more comfortable going in, knowing that if the jury thinks your guy really is whacked and can't tell right from wrong, it's a complete defense. You don't argue intent; you argue whether he's defective. It seems it might be a better argument to have in your arsenal when your guy has done some majorly horrific things. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said: Murder requires intent (mostly, but let's not get into the weeds). The defense's argument, if insanity is not a statutory defense to the crime, is that, "He was insane and didn't have the required intent." The prosecution's rebuttal is that, "He was crazy, alright, but he dang sure intended to kill them." wouldn’t a legitimately insane person be living in (for lack of a better term) a different reality? How could we expect such a person to operate within the confines of our reality? if they’re required to, would there be any legal protection for a truly insane individual or is prison just another potential side effect of their illness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.