- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 3,928
- Reaction score
- 1,559
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yes... because he was -obviously- sane.
Yes.... because to be held accountable for a crime, regardless of what that crime is, you have to have the capacity to understand that what you did was a crime and that you are on trial for it.I get so tired of the "insanity" defense. If you grab a gun and kill people, should it even matter?
Yes.... because to be held accountable for a crime, regardless of what that crime is, you have to have the capacity to understand that what you did was a crime and that you are on trial for it.
He can't defend himself at trial. Holding a trial at this point would be a mockery. In the meantime, he will be institutionalized for the safety of the community.
Honestly, I don't understand what everyone is so upset about. It's not like he's getting away with anything.
The judge said the experts who examined Loughner both concluded that he was schizophrenic suffering from paranoia and delusions. His mental illness is such that he does not trust his own lawyers and cannot at this point assist in his own defense.
He planned it for months. He was aware of what he was doing. Just because he was crazy enough to do it doesn't mean he wasn't aware of it.
he just needs killin
and if he is nutso all a better reason-he's like a mad dog
I don't disagree, but we're talking about violating the most basic foundation of our criminal justice system. If he can't participate in his own defense, putting him on trial is no different than a summary execution.
Yes.... because to be held accountable for a crime, regardless of what that crime is, you have to have the capacity to understand that what you did was a crime and that you are on trial for it.
I remember a visiting law professor argue that executing the really whackos made more sense than say a hit man who is completely rational (killing for money). the latter has talent and can be useful to the government. an insane barking at the moon loon is past be salvaged
This is the right thing because he is going to be held as long as it takes to get him sane enough to stand trial. …
But, wait! You would have to be insane to acknowledge that you are ever sane enough to stand trial for your life. Seems like a Catch-22 to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?