Jump to content

Looks like most of you are headed to jail...


Jeff Matthews
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...