Question about the insanity defense

[Very_Boring_Name]

What exactly is required in terms of ones state of mind at the time the crime was committed in order to plead insanity? I ask because I wonder if the fact that he wrote "Goodbye dear friends, please don't be mad at me" on myspace a few hours before he shot up the place would end his chance of a successful insanity defense since he seems to have known that A) What he was doing was wrong, either legally or morally and B)He was clearly aware that his actions would have consequences.

[LisaL]

1. I don't think anything is required to plead insanity.

If someone pleads insanity the burden is on them to prove they are in fact insane, instead of prosecution having to prove guilt.

[Very_Boring_Name]

2. I should have phrased it better

I should have said, what typically has to be demonstrated in order to prove that the defendant was legally insane while the crime was committed.

[LisaL]

3. Not knowing right from wrong.

[Very_Boring_Name]

5. So since he knew what he was doing was wrong ("Dont be mad at me"), his chances at

pleading insanity seem pretty much gone.

[beyurslf]

11. Just to play the devil's advocate, couldn't that just mean that he knew they would not

like or approve of it, not necessarily that he knew it was wrong?

[LisaL]

13. Why would they not approve unless it was wrong?

[beyurslf]

17. It doesn't say what he was going to do so maybe he was going to sell

his belongings and hitchhike to CA or maybe he was going to make good on some stupid drunken bet from last weekend. Who knows! Only he knows, and he is not going to testify.

[Very_Boring_Name]

18. Excellent point

I hadn't thought of that.

[varkam]

4. I believe it varies by jurisdiction, but generally...

to achieve a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the defense has to show that the defendant could not appreciate the consequences of their actions and/or appreciate the blameworthiness of their conduct at the time of the offense. Insanity defenses are difficult to win, partially because the standard is so difficult to meet and partially because, even if a defendant is insane, juries will sometimes worry about finding that the defendant was insane means that they will walk free and so they will convict anyway.

There's also a "partial" insanity defense which goes by different names but is usually something like emotional or mental disturbance. With that, criminal liability still attaches but the conduct is mitigated in view of a mental or emotional disturbance of the defendant (though they could still appreciate what they were doing was wrong).

[Very_Boring_Name]

7. Thank you for this!

I bet that last myspace status will play a big role in the trial then, since it seems to establish that he knew the consequences of his actions.

[varkam]

22. Yeah I don't think that it will do him any favors in trying for an insanity defense. eom

[aikoaiko]

29. welcome back, varkam.

When did you get back?

[varkam]

33. Thank you.

Well I've lurked here and there for a while but school has finally let up so I 'decloaked' a few days ago. How have you been?

[aikoaiko]

36. I've been well.

I got a promotion and now I'm working 10 - 12 hour days, but the money is better and it helps pay the down the family bills.

I know we disagreed about things, but I did learn from you. Keep up the good work you do here (and I'm sure in the rest of your life).

[varkam]

37. I learn more from those I disagree with as opposed to those who think like me.

:) Glad to hear you're doing well. Thank you for your kind words.

[valerief]

6. I think it depends on how much you pay off the judge. nt

[RegieRocker]

8. He will spend the rest of his life in jail however long that might be.

[TBF]

31. For killing a federal judge plus 6 other people? I doubt it-

this will be a federal capital offense.

[RegieRocker]

39. He is in jail. How long he lives is questionable

[Jamastiene]

9. Apparently, and I haven't seen a link for this yet,

most everyone seems to think he was mentally ill already, as if only a mentally ill person could kill people somehow.

How the law sees it, I'm not sure.

I do know that the definition of "crazy" is different than the definition of "insane" because a therapist told me the difference in terms of legally committing someone to a mental hospital.You can be as "crazy" as you want to be as long as you are not a threat to anyone else or yourself. And this is literally what the therapist told me, "You can wear a cape and tights and ride down the road on a bicycle with a giant ostrich feather on the back of the seat, and as long as you follow the law, you cannot be committed for that." But, if you threaten to hurt yourself or others, or you actually hurt yourself or others, you can be considered insane and sent to a mental hospital.

How that relates to trials and jail and the law, I'm not sure.

The "crazy" sure have taken a beating today. I still don't know where the guy was determined to be mentally ill. I have yet to see a link to that document. Yet, almost everyone seems to agree (except me) that he MUST have been mentally ill. I think he was just a mean dickhead who decided to kill a bunch of people based on his own hatred. A genuine prick. Most mentally ill people I have known are not mass murdering fuckheads, but that's just my piddly opinion.

[LisaL]

12. Someone can be mentally ill and not legally insane.

[Jamastiene]

14. But, where do nuts, crazy, and batshit fall on those lines?

I have heard all today to describe mentally ill people, mass murdering fuckheads or not.

[Very_Boring_Name]

20. I think you're right

Now that I think of it, I have been working under the assumption all day that he is mentally ill, despite having zero evidence to prove it. His behavior was certainly extremely odd, but mental illness does have a medical definition and I'm not sure whether or not he meets the requirements.

[wickerwoman]

23. Watch his youtube videos...

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

Absolutely textbook schizophrenic ramblings about grammar, the gold standard, "conscience dreams", mind control, the unconstitutionality of his community college grades...

Also check out the video he favorited:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/f/0/3L1lsLU-kUw

where a guy shuffles around in a garbage bag with a mask on and then burns a flag and tell me he wasn't certifiable.

[LisaL]

24. Even if he were actually to be diagnosed as a

schizophrenic still wouldn't mean he is legally insane.

[wickerwoman]

25. I was answering J's specific question

about why DUers have decided that he was mentally ill. Anyone who watches those videos and has even a passing familiarity with the DSM will think "schizophrenia" right off the bat.

As for legal culpability... I leave that for lawyers and judges to decide.

All I'm saying is that the material I've seen shows someone with a seriously disturbed thought pattern.

[eShirl]

30. being a danger to yourself and/or others is not the same as legal insanity

[somone]

10. Famous Souter ruling for Arizona on this:

On June 21, 2000, Eric Michael Clark, a 17-year-old Flagstaff, Arizona, high school senior, was arrested and charged with the murder of police officer Jeff Moritz.

There was no question about the shooting: It happened after the officer pulled over the pickup truck Clark was driving with music blaring loudly. There was also no question that Eric Clark suffered from mental illness. But there was a question whether he was legally insane. Even prosecutors acknowledged he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.

Before and after the shooting, Clark had warned his parents that Flagstaff was inhabited by aliens, and he suspected they were aliens, too. It took three years before Clark was found to be competent to stand trial. His lawyer then pushed for a verdict of guilty except insane, which would have placed Clark in a psychiatric facility.

But Arizona's legally insane standard requires that the accused, at the time of the crime, not know the criminal act was wrong. And during the trial, prosecutors convinced the presiding judge that Clark did know. The judge found Clark guilty of first-degree intentional murder and sentenced him to life in prison.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-5966.ZS.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/insanity_4-19.html

[Very_Boring_Name]

21. They say he hesitated before he pulled the trigger too

But Arizona's legally insane standard requires that the accused, at the time of the crime, not know the criminal act was wrong.

Why would Jared hesitate if he didn't know what he was doing was wrong?

[PoliticAverse]

26. Excellent post n/t.

[lonestarnot]

15. You said it!

[Imagevision]

16. insanity defense? perhaps the scumbag can use the currency change as a defense...

[cali]

27. there is a a lot of evidence emerging that this guy is/was psychotic

expect to see more, and expect an insanity defense.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. The common law principle applied to an insanity defence is known as the M'Naghten Rule.

So-called after one Daniel M'Naghten, who assassinated a civil servant called Edward Drummond whilst suffering paranoid delusions (probably schizophrenia).

The M'Naghten Rule was summarised thusly by the House of Lords:

...the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

Note that this is the standard applied to cases where an insanity defence is entered in Arizona (and in most US states, which are common law jurisdictions).

[TBF]

32. Yes, that's the precedent -

I suspect that this defendant will be charged with federal capital murder for the killing of the judge.

[quaker bill]

28. The act itself argues against this

The ability to remain sufficiently composed to be able to walk up to a congressperson pull the gun and fire argues for a level of sanity sufficient to convict. Had the person become unhinged and started firing randomly into the crowd, the argument might be somewhat sustainable.

[Mike 03]

34. I don't think premeditation and psychosis are mutually exclusive. By his own

admission he premeditated the crime, but what was he believing at the time he planned it? The sanity of the beliefs is what will be at issue.

[quaker bill]

35. The standard for "sanity" is far lower than you think

If you capable of and generally aware that killing people is generally viewed as wrong, and you do it anyway, with intent, you are considered sufficiently sane to stand trial and be held accountable in this country. You can believe all sorts of wacky things, and still be "sane" under this standard.

To my mind, no one who shoots anyone in anything other than pure self-defense, is actually sane in the larger sense of sanity. This is not the standard applied. The fact that he was able to plan, organize, and act on the plan, shows a sufficient grip on reality for the courts to hold him accountable.

[Statistical]

38. An example.

I have a delusion. Not in the loose sense of the word but an honest mental illness. I see and hear things that aren't there. I am 100% convinced you are trying to kill me. I shoot you. There is plenty of evidence of premediation. I have documents showing your routes, schedules, etc. Maybe even I stalked you, took photos, etc. What matters is my state of mind at the time of the attack. If I genuinely believe I did nothing wrong (I believe I HAD to kill you due to the delusions) then I should be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

One can be both criminally insane AND have premeditation. We don't know if this is the case here but it is possible. The suspect has at least symptoms of Schizophrenia. I am sure both prosecutor and defense will have him clinically evaluated. If he is schizophrenic it is possible his delusions were more real to him than reality. Whatever story his mind created involving the Congresswoman would be indistinguishable from reality.

John Hinckley Jr (man who attempted to assassinate Reagan) for example was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. He has spent the rest of his life in mental hospital. Now since then the burden of proof is much higher (partially out of outrage on that verdict) but it is still achievable.

The two are not mutually exclusive.