Patrick,
Re your comment below:
"Frankly, Jim, this is a problem with the law that needs to
be changed. There's too much theology and superstition in US
jurisprudence. The idea that any man can kill a young woman,
go to prison for "life," and be released on good behavior
after 7 or so years, puts the lawmakers in league with the
murderers. What does it say to the families of victims? That
the murderer of your relative is more important than his
victims. That he's going to do some valuable thing that makes
his freedom significant to society. That his life is more
important than theose he took. The US judiciary is not
competent to deal with these types of criminals. Citizens
groups of Regulators or Vigilance Committees would best
dispense with these people. I don't suggest vengence. I
suggest practical extermination. Such people are a scourge in
any society in which they manifest. Don't tell me it's not a
deterrent. Ted Bundy hasn't killed anyone in years."
What has any of that got to do with the point I made? The
antecedent to the "this" in your first sentence is the legal
standard that one who is truly crazy is incapable of
committing a crime, and, conseqently, being crazy does,
contrary to you earlier post, excuse acts that would
otherwise be reprehensible.
What has that got to do with courts handing out insufficient
sentences or failing to impose capital punishment? Anybody
who's been on this board for awhile probably knows, or can
easily guess, how I feel about strict punishments for
lawbreakers, or about executing murderers. Why bring those
issues up as though I was arguing against them?
The insanity plea doesn't have anything to do with that.
Someone who serves a sentence has already been found guilty
which means either that he didn't raise the issue of his
mental health, or that, if he did, the jury decided that his
assertion of insanity wasn't true. If, having been found
guilty, he is then given a sentence that is less than he
deserves, or if he then escapes the death penalty when it's
appropriate that it be imposed, that has nothing to do with
whether or not a defendant's mental state can be raised as an
affirmative defense.
You brought up the issue. Focus on it.
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from
someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Oct 2007 EDT