• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Insanity Plea

BodiSatva

The Bodhisattva
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
49
Location
Bodega Bay, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?

It seems to me that any person that kills another is already insane. Literally. I am a reasonable and compassionate individual. I would NEVER MURDER a person. Murder...Pre-Meditated...

To Pre-Meditate the Killing of a person... in my opnion, is Insane.

IF I was to go onto a Jury and they claimed that the Murderer did it, but should be let off with less than the Max Whatever just becuase they were insane...well, I would laugh in their face.

What do you think?

This is a TOPIC STARTER and does not encompass ALL OF MY BELIEFS for all of you retarded nimrods that like to find a flaw with an INITIAL STATEMENT...unable to deviate from that intial attack platform.

To the rest...what do you think? Is the Insanity Plea Legitimate or are those that commit MURDER already Insane, making the whole point mute?

What do we do with Insane people then?
 
I think you think too highly of the morality of other human beings. Just because you feel it may be morally impermissable to take another's life does not mean others do. With that lack of a strong moral system, they can be perfectly sane while still commiting murder.

Unless you want to say anyone without your same morality is insane...in which case I think you're mistaken.
 
Sauwan
I think you think too highly of the morality of other human beings. Just because you feel it may be morally impermissable to take another's life does not mean others do. With that lack of a strong moral system, they can be perfectly sane while still commiting murder.

Unless you want to say anyone without your same morality is insane...in which case I think you're mistaken.

thank you for you insight regarding this issue...seriously...no insult intended.

I think very little regarding the morality of other human beings, to be honest.

I think that it is Irrelevant what others think, or even the majority of people think, about taking a person's life. You hit the nail on the head while glazing over the real issue...the Moral System. It is irrelevant what the "Moral System" of the society IS. Morals are Morals and regardless of what a society "feels" is Moral...Morality remains constant. People "wish" to justify Morality, when it is really simple. People try to "justify" why people do what they do and find Politically Correct reason to explain why things happen so as not to offend people....but reality is that **** happens and murderers are Insane simply because they murdered a person...

Do I wonder if a person masterbating in their own feces is Insane while plotting the deaths of schoolkids? No. Why bother? It is evident...right? Except by your reasoning, this might be just fine and dandy under the right moral system... huh? ;)
 
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?

I do not believe that it is, but not for the reasons you give. My concern is not whether a criminal is deserving of punishment, but whether or not reoffense is likely. By claiming that the crime was committed under the influence of mental defect, the accused is practically guaranteeing that it will occur.

BodiSatva said:
It seems to me that any person that kills another is already insane. Literally.

People kill each other for many different reasons. Most of the people that we consider heroes-- especially from history-- are heroes because of who they killed, how many, and why.
 
I think that it is Irrelevant what others think, or even the majority of people think, about taking a person's life. You hit the nail on the head while glazing over the real issue...the Moral System. It is irrelevant what the "Moral System" of the society IS. Morals are Morals and regardless of what a society "feels" is Moral...Morality remains constant. People "wish" to justify Morality, when it is really simple. People try to "justify" why people do what they do and find Politically Correct reason to explain why things happen so as not to offend people....but reality is that **** happens and murderers are Insane simply because they murdered a person...
Would you mind defining insanity? I don't think your and mine match up.

The 'definition' "Doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results" doesn't exactly pertain here.

I think of it as taking action in a way that is rationally unjustified. So if someone were to commit murder, rationally understanding the consequences and weighing the options, they would be sane in doing so. I think they are morally very wrong in committing that action.

For instance, let's assume someone has a hedonistic view on life. The only thing that is good is happiness, and maximizing happiness is the ultimate good. One can rationally hold this position. (Although, again, I think they are wrong)

Now if this person (call him person A) decides person B makes his life very unhappy, as well as understanding that person B will no longer have any happiness whatsoever if they were to die, they might make the rational choice to maximize total happiness by killing person B. This is assuming they have weighed the consequences that they will almost surely go to jail, and there will be a great amount of unhappiness by person B's family. But if person A truely believes his happiness level will far exceed all of this just by killing person B, I do not think he would be insane.

Under your apparent definition of insanity, the taking of another's life is an act that in itself dictates insanity. In that case, wouldn't taking that persons life through the death penalty dictate societies collective insanity?
 
By claiming that the crime was committed under the influence of mental defect, the accused is practically guaranteeing that it will occur.
Why are mental defects incurable? Syphilis is known to cause these defects and is also known to be relatively easy to treat.
 
There is no defined line between mental illness and one's own thought. There is more of a broad grey area that leaves jurors free to make up their own minds.
 
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?

It seems to me that any person that kills another is already insane. Literally. I am a reasonable and compassionate individual. I would NEVER MURDER a person. Murder...Pre-Meditated...

To Pre-Meditate the Killing of a person... in my opnion, is Insane.

IF I was to go onto a Jury and they claimed that the Murderer did it, but should be let off with less than the Max Whatever just becuase they were insane...well, I would laugh in their face.

What do you think?

This is a TOPIC STARTER and does not encompass ALL OF MY BELIEFS for all of you retarded nimrods that like to find a flaw with an INITIAL STATEMENT...unable to deviate from that intial attack platform.

To the rest...what do you think? Is the Insanity Plea Legitimate or are those that commit MURDER already Insane, making the whole point mute?

What do we do with Insane people then?

I have to give this kind of a weasel answer.

Insanity is defined by the majority; none of us perceive reality in quite the same way, but we share enough elements of that perception that we can communicate and relate to one another. It is impossible to objectively state how far a person may deviate from the common perception to qualify as insane, since we cannot tell just how much a certain individual deviates. For instance, if you and I share certain moral views -- murder is bad, family is good, compassion is swell, etc. -- you may not realize that I see you as a giant centipede with a thousand purple eyes, and I myself am, well, my avatar.:smile: After a conversation on our shared morality, you'd think I was just a stand-up guy. The same problem expands to include every individual, and every conversation. We have no idea what else is lurking in the head of those we speak to, and so a judgement of one person being insane has to be based on a subjective set of criteria: these views, if they deviate from the norm, define insanity. Which views, and how deviant, is a subjective choice.

Therefore, if society has deemed that a person who sees other people in this way, say, he thinks all other people are simply programs in the Matrix and he himself is Neo, then that person is insane. Whereas the person who sees other people in that way, say, they are chumps with money and he is the clever man who fights the system by shooting them and taking their money, then he is not insane. In both cases, their views deviate from our subjective, apparent "norm," but neither is provably more or less deviant than anyone else.

So the insanity plea is as logically consistent as is any other judgement of people, as long as we as a society think it is.


Personally? I think that our goal should be, as Korimyr said, to stop repetitions of the original crime. If treating the deviant perception would guarantee that, I'm all for it. If we were smart enough to treat the "chumps with money" guy, I'd be all for declaring him insane, and treating him, as well. If treatment to prevent recidivism is not an option, then lock him up -- whatever his own personal view of the world may be.
 
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?

It seems to me that any person that kills another is already insane. Literally. I am a reasonable and compassionate individual. I would NEVER MURDER a person. Murder...Pre-Meditated...

To Pre-Meditate the Killing of a person... in my opnion, is Insane.

IF I was to go onto a Jury and they claimed that the Murderer did it, but should be let off with less than the Max Whatever just becuase they were insane...well, I would laugh in their face.

What do you think?

This is a TOPIC STARTER and does not encompass ALL OF MY BELIEFS for all of you retarded nimrods that like to find a flaw with an INITIAL STATEMENT...unable to deviate from that intial attack platform.

To the rest...what do you think? Is the Insanity Plea Legitimate or are those that commit MURDER already Insane, making the whole point mute?

What do we do with Insane people then?


I think the mentality of a individual should not matter because it does not change the fact that individual committed the crime.
 
I have to give this kind of a weasel answer.

Insanity is defined by the majority; none of us perceive reality in quite the same way, but we share enough elements of that perception that we can communicate and relate to one another. It is impossible to objectively state how far a person may deviate from the common perception to qualify as insane, since we cannot tell just how much a certain individual deviates. For instance, if you and I share certain moral views -- murder is bad, family is good, compassion is swell, etc. -- you may not realize that I see you as a giant centipede with a thousand purple eyes, and I myself am, well, my avatar.:smile: After a conversation on our shared morality, you'd think I was just a stand-up guy. The same problem expands to include every individual, and every conversation. We have no idea what else is lurking in the head of those we speak to, and so a judgement of one person being insane has to be based on a subjective set of criteria: these views, if they deviate from the norm, define insanity. Which views, and how deviant, is a subjective choice.

Therefore, if society has deemed that a person who sees other people in this way, say, he thinks all other people are simply programs in the Matrix and he himself is Neo, then that person is insane. Whereas the person who sees other people in that way, say, they are chumps with money and he is the clever man who fights the system by shooting them and taking their money, then he is not insane. In both cases, their views deviate from our subjective, apparent "norm," but neither is provably more or less deviant than anyone else.

So the insanity plea is as logically consistent as is any other judgement of people, as long as we as a society think it is.


Personally? I think that our goal should be, as Korimyr said, to stop repetitions of the original crime. If treating the deviant perception would guarantee that, I'm all for it. If we were smart enough to treat the "chumps with money" guy, I'd be all for declaring him insane, and treating him, as well. If treatment to prevent recidivism is not an option, then lock him up -- whatever his own personal view of the world may be.



Agreed.
In the future, there may be other options to keeping criminals at high risk for recidivism (for example, pedophiles) in an actual penal facility for life; technology could make house arrest and supervised probation/ parole more feasible, for instance.
One possibility is that the criminal could be implanted with a tracking device that would monitor his movements and activities 24/7.
The current system of passing a hodge-podge of state and municipal legislation aimed at protecting the populace from convicted sex predators (such as curfews prohibiting convicted offenders from being out after dark, on-line sex offender registries, laws prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living within a certain distance from schools and public parks and from working in certain fields of employment, for instance) has proven largely ineffective at protecting innocent people against recidivistic criminals, and also makes life unnecessarily impossible for released criminals, whether they ever reoffend or not.
Keep them locked up forever if you want, but if we release them at some point, we must allow them to find employment and adequate housing, and we must protect them from violent retaliation.
We must balance this with protecting innocent people from them.
I see curfews, restrictions about where they can live, and things like that as being utterly ineffective at accomplishing either goal, and in fact detrimental, in that convicted sex offenders who are unable to find housing that is not within a certain radius of a public park or school may simply fail to report their correct address to authorities, and then the system loses track of them entirely.
I don't know; I dislike the idea of microchipping too, on general principles (once anyone can be involuntarily chipped, it sets a precedent for a scenario where we all could). But something has got to be done to protect society, and locking up those convicted of sex crimes for life is not something society is willing to do, especially if they are otherwise functional individuals who suffer from some sort of psychological illness which causes them to offend.
Society's answer thus far has been to pass feel-good laws that help no one and in fact may do more harm than good (several states have recently repealed legislation about sex offenders not living in close proximity to parks and schools, for the reasons I just cited; it makes it impossible, in some urban areas, for the sex offenders to find housing at all. Therefore, they simply fail to report their addresses and law enforcement loses track of them).
It's a difficult question; obviously, our system needs some work.
 
Sauwan
Would you mind defining insanity?

in·sane - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-seyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.
3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.

I don't think your and mine match up

I think that there is only one definition for insane…and that is a mental disorder affecting judgment.

The 'definition' "Doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results" doesn't exactly pertain here.

I am not sure what comment of mine you are referring to.

I think of it as taking action in a way that is rationally unjustified. So if someone were to commit murder, rationally understanding the consequences and weighing the options, they would be sane in doing so.

But murder is not rational. A person might have “a reason” to kill another, but “A reason” can’t be justified unless it is specific…self-defense or something, but then it is not murder. See, people try to “justify” murder. “Oh, that guy knew what he was doing when he killed his wife for the money”…blah. That is insane. IT is not rational.

Society, in its effort to be Politically Correct...conjurs up Justifications for why people do things. By doing this, they absolve people of responsibility. Any person that murders should be tried of murder.

The reason is not in good sense and the conclusions derived are not sound. Look at these definitions…

ra·tion·al - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

rea·son - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-zuh n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

Sane people have a "Sound Mind" and form "Rational Conclusions"

I think they are morally very wrong in committing that action.

That is the point. Morals do not bend. Morally, there is no justifiable or rational reason to murder a person.

Under your apparent definition of insanity, the taking of another's life is an act that in itself dictates insanity.

Under THE definition of insanity…not simply “my definition”.

In that case, wouldn't taking that persons life through the death penalty dictate societies collective insanity?

Great question.
No. It is not insane to remove insane people out of society permanently by initiating a death penalty.

Jamesrage
I think the mentality of a individual should not matter because it does not change the fact that individual committed the crime.

I concur.
 
This was the most current information I could find on the legal requirements for an insanity pleas.

"In 1984, Congress passed, and President Ronald Reagan signed, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" (18 U.S.C. § 17). This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from wrong" standard. The Act also contained the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 4241, which sets out sentencing and other provisions for dealing with offenders who are or have been suffering from a mental disease or defect."

I have met with a number of murderers. Some were, in my opinion, insane and some weren't. Simply deviating from what you consider to be the norm does not consitute insanity.
 
in·sane - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-seyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.
3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.



I think that there is only one definition for insane…and that is a mental disorder affecting judgment.
Thanks. I'll try to use yours now.



I am not sure what comment of mine you are referring to.
Hah, sorry, wasn't referring to anything of yours...



But murder is not rational. A person might have “a reason” to kill another, but “A reason” can’t be justified unless it is specific…self-defense or something, but then it is not murder. See, people try to “justify” murder. “Oh, that guy knew what he was doing when he killed his wife for the money”…blah. That is insane. IT is not rational.
Herein lies the problem. You're begging the question here with your assumption that murder is not rational. I can think of millions of rational reasons to take another's life. None of them, I feel, would be justified...but someone else might feel that one may be justified. They do not actually have to be justified, just mistaken. If that's the case, they can easily be confused, but not insane. For example, in much the same way Richard Dawkins might say the Pope is mistaken in his justification of a "god", it does not make the pope insane to believe there is a God.

Society, in its effort to be Politically Correct...conjurs up Justifications for why people do things. By doing this, they absolve people of responsibility. Any person that murders should be tried of murder.
I disagree. Like I mentioned before, a person with untreated syphilis could have a medical inability to understand the difference between right and wrong. With a little attention and help, this person could quickly and easily be admitted back into the world with absolutely no potential for a repeat.
The reason is not in good sense and the conclusions derived are not sound. Look at these definitions…

ra·tion·al - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

rea·son - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-zuh n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

Sane people have a "Sound Mind" and form "Rational Conclusions"
And there are multitudes of medical sources where people lack rationality or moral judgment. If someone does not have the capacity to make these choices, they should not be tried in the same fashion as someone who did.



That is the point. Morals do not bend. Morally, there is no justifiable or rational reason to murder a person.
But there are plenty of irrational ones.
 
That is the point. Morals do not bend. Morally, there is no justifiable or rational reason to murder a person.

But there are plenty of irrational ones.

That is the point. It seems that you agree that there are no rational reason to murder a person. Do you agree?

Remember...

jus·ti·fi·a·ble
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tuh-fahy-uh-buhl, juhs-tuh-fahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible: justifiable homicide.

Irrationality can not be justified. Justifiable homicide is NOT murder. Wanting to murder a person is not rational for there is no just reason to do so. IF a guy is holding my daughter at gunpoint and says he is going to kill her, and I quick draw on him and kill him, that is not murder. There are lots of justifiable reasons to kill somebody, but they are not murders.

Murder cannot be justified.
Murder is not rational.
Murder is not reasonable.

And there are multitudes of medical sources where people lack rationality or moral judgment. If someone does not have the capacity to make these choices, they should not be tried in the same fashion as someone who did.

I disagree. I don't care one squirrel **** why a person rapes and murders my kid. They did it and they had syphilis and can be cured? Who gives a ****. Seriously. That person should die, plain and simple. Fried. Done.

What if they were put in a hospital and I went and killed him? Would that be murder, once he was cured and happy and re-united with his family? Would it be justifiable for me to put a bullet in his head?
 
Irrationality can not be justified. Justifiable homicide is NOT murder. Wanting to murder a person is not rational for there is no just reason to do so. IF a guy is holding my daughter at gunpoint and says he is going to kill her, and I quick draw on him and kill him, that is not murder. There are lots of justifiable reasons to kill somebody, but they are not murders.

Murder cannot be justified.
Murder is not rational.
Murder is not reasonable.
Well in that case, someone who kills someone because they are insane is not murdering someone. They are just killing them.

I disagree. I don't care one squirrel **** why a person rapes and murders my kid. They did it and they had syphilis and can be cured? Who gives a ****. Seriously. That person should die, plain and simple. Fried. Done.
Easy there tiger.

Let's take a hypothetical here. Let's say one day there is an important bridge that goes between London and Amsterdam. Tons of traffic passes it every day. It sees tons of people. Then one day, due to poor engineering (metaphor for some disease) a bolt pops loose on the bridge and sends a single wire crashing to the ground, killing one person.

The bridge didn't mean to do it. It just happened because of something outside its control (assume the bridge thinks). What do you do with the bridge? Do you tear the whole thing down, or do you do a simple repair of the thing to ensure it doesn't happen again?

To me, it would be insane to tear the whole bridge down if there is such an easy fix.

What if they were put in a hospital and I went and killed him? Would that be murder, once he was cured and happy and re-united with his family? Would it be justifiable for me to put a bullet in his head?
That would be murder, and unjustified.

I get the feeling that there is something more here than just a hypothetical, so I apologize if I am saying anything that upsets you.
 
There are those who commit murder because they are 'angry' or 'offended' or extremely self-absorbed. For instance, those who murder to gain an inheritance or in vengeance for not obeying one's wishes or vengeance for stealing one's spouse, etc.

There are those who commit murder because 'the voices say it is what must be done'.


Both sets of people probably are actually doing what they think is right and correct. But the first has a basis for evaluating the matter rationally, and fails to do so, while the second has no basis for rational reflection, and cannot do so. Shouldn't there be a difference between how we evaluate the two groups?

Some suggest that the only consideration is whether the person is likely to commit the crime again. Such a notion completely ignores the matter of justice, making the issue entirely one of prudence. Prudence is a factor, naturally, but our urge to ignore complexity by paying attention to only one factor is folly.

Personally, I find it easy to view the first set of people with moral revulsion, but I have only compassion for the second. Now, I can agree that prudent steps to prevent future offences is in the top 3 considerations. But, if we do punish the truly insane, it is nothing but following tragedy with injustice.
 
Well in that case, someone who kills someone because they are insane is not murdering someone. They are just killing them.

hmmm... Interesting. This throws my point in a loop. Well Done. PErhaps it is not something tangible that can be explained then....

Easy there tiger.

I am all smiles...
Squirrel shits are funny! :2razz:

I get the feeling that there is something more here than just a hypothetical, so I apologize if I am saying anything that upsets you.

Not at all. Just passionate. Thank you for your concern though, that is thoughtful.

More to come...
 
IS such a thing as the "Insanity Plea" a legitimate defense?

The plea of insanity is used all to often in murder cases. A plea of insanity buys you less jail time, and sees you sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison.

I once read a funny thing - in order to plead insane, you have to first be sane. You must know what you are pleading to, and why you are pleading the way you are. So anyone who pleads insanity is not actually insane at all.
 
in order to plead insane, you have to first be sane.

I have heard that as well, it is an interesting conundrum ;)
 
The plea of insanity is used all to often in murder cases. A plea of insanity buys you less jail time, and sees you sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison.

I once read a funny thing - in order to plead insane, you have to first be sane. You must know what you are pleading to, and why you are pleading the way you are. So anyone who pleads insanity is not actually insane at all.
Well it's not like that XD When you plead insane, it's pleading that you were insane at the time of the crime, not all the time.
 
Gunface
Well it's not like that XD When you plead insane, it's pleading that you were insane at the time of the crime, not all the time.

Actually it IS like that. :2razz:

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (U.S.)

"the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts."

“The Defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”
 
The insanity defense is rarely used and is very rarely successful.
The average number of insanity acquittals per state per year is 17.7.
California and Florida have the highest annual averages (134 and 111, respectively); New Mexico (0.0) and South Dakota (0.1) have the lowest. *

One memorable case where the Insanity Plea was used to good effect was the case of Lorena Bobbitt, who went to trial in 1994 for severing her husband's penis with a kitchen knife while he slept.
Charged with "malicious wounding", she was ultimately acquitted on the grounds that she had been temporarily insane at the time of the incident.
She was ordered to spend a 45-day evaluation period in a psychiatric hospital, and was then freed with no further charges or penalties.



* Source: Psychology and the Legal System, 5th Edition; Wrightsman, Lawrence S. Edie Greene, Michael T. Nietzel, and William H. Fortune. (2002)
 
Actually it IS like that. :2razz:

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (U.S.)

"the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts."

“The Defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.”

Yeah I know. But it's not to say that they're permanently insane; as 1069 said, Lorena Bobbit was acquitted with being "temporarily insane".
 
That is close, but not entirely accurate...

Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty when her defense argued that an Irresistible Impulse led her to hack the crank.

Irresistible Impulse is not Insanity, and Temporary Insanity is something else entirely...

They cahnged the law though, since Bobbitt committed her act. The Penal Code of the U.S. state of California states (2002), "The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished ... there shall be no defense of ... diminished responsibility or Irresistible Impulse..."
 
That is close, but not entirely accurate...

Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty when her defense argued that an Irresistible Impulse led her to hack the crank.

Irresistible Impulse is not Insanity, and Temporary Insanity is something else entirely...

They cahnged the law though, since Bobbitt committed her act. The Penal Code of the U.S. state of California states (2002), "The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished ... there shall be no defense of ... diminished responsibility or Irresistible Impulse..."

What I get a kick out of is that Lorena Bobbitt later went on to be arrested again, for physically assaulting her mother; John Wayne Bobbitt went on to be arrested a number of times for physically assaulting his new wife.
It's obvious the two psychos were perfect for each other and should've just stayed together, severed penis or no. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom