Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Its really starting to frost my tips that every single trial goes to an insanity defense.
That scumbag who ran over the girl here in Calgary and then said that he didn't recall hitting her because he was so stressed out about his divorce.
This girl stabbing a baby over a hundred times and already there's talk that she's insane or she suffered a rage or fear induced blackout.
I'm sorry, I don't really fully believe in it. At her core she knew what she was doing, a 100 jabs of a knife tells me that.
Its irrelevant if she's insane or not, the question that has to be answered is does she know right from wrong. In my mind if she doesn't she shouldn't be around other people, and if she does, then she committed a major crime and shouldn't be around other people.
I guess thats why I'll never be a judge, because I don't believe in the blackout theory, or a crime of fear or passion or anger being an excuse for taking a life.
|
Being sane or insane, I would think would be directly related to your ability to distinguish what is right and what is wrong.
I've thought about that too. A judge is in the same boat as you. He is not an expert or a physiologist. That's is precisely why expert witnesses are brought in to testify. I don't have anything to back this up with, but I think the insanity defense is used far more than it is accepted. For the most part it always seems like it is the last card to be played by lawyer when everything else has failed. I would be curious to know, how many cases of pleading insanity are successful.
What happen with that guy in Calgary who hit that girl? Did his "excuse" work? I recall him making that claim, but in relation to the whole story it doesn't even make a lick of sense. Didn't he go pick up pizza after he hit her?