Double Post
Judy Clarke, Who Defended the 'Unabomber,' Will Represent Jared Lee Loughner
- Thread starter JB Books
- Start Date
My old lawyer told me once " It's my job to make sure the State does it's job, nothing more", when I asked him how he could do criminal defense work.
I have to give Bob credit... he did get a few mental cases sent to mental hospitals instead of prison.
I have to give Bob credit... he did get a few mental cases sent to mental hospitals instead of prison.
from what i have heard several "experts" say today, Arizona has a much tougher mental illness law. to the point that just b/c you are declared mentally ill does not mean you are unable to be convicted of murder, which differs from the federal law that allows the mental illness defense to rule out the murder conviction. this makes me feel somewhat warm inside and i hope that OK can get on board with this type of legislation
What OK really needs to do is get a functional mental illness treatment system in place! The current preferred method is jail, prison or the day center for the homeless.
Even with AZ having a tougher Mental instanity law, the Federal law says you can not execute the mental unstable I thought.
Not that I dont care, but in this case with so many people seeing him do it and he being cognant enough to formulate a plan and carry it out I say he is fine and his pool may need some bleache added to it to sterilize it.
Not that I dont care, but in this case with so many people seeing him do it and he being cognant enough to formulate a plan and carry it out I say he is fine and his pool may need some bleache added to it to sterilize it.
Didn't the courts change the definition of legal insanity after Hincley's trial?
I think that these days you can be crazy as a bed bug without being "legally insane."
The standard these days seems to be that if the defendant knew what he was doing was illegal he can't be ruled "legally" insane.
Something like that. It's an almost impossibly high standard compared to what was in place thirty years ago.
I think that these days you can be crazy as a bed bug without being "legally insane."
The standard these days seems to be that if the defendant knew what he was doing was illegal he can't be ruled "legally" insane.
Something like that. It's an almost impossibly high standard compared to what was in place thirty years ago.
She's not an ambulance chaser. Ambulance chasers are guys like me who spend tons on TV ads. And I don't just chase them, I catch them.
Say Books,
Does my question make sense?
VeggieMeat is out of pocket this week.
Does my question make sense?
VeggieMeat is out of pocket this week.
Before Hinckley, the burden was with the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. However, due to the obvious issues of this being brought to the forefront in Hinckley's case, the burden was shifted to the defense to prove that the defendant was insane beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the specific mental illness cited must be considered "severe". (18 U.S.C. § 17)
However, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), expert witnesses called to testify on the mental state of a defendant cannot state an opinion that the defendant had the mental condition at the time of the crime.
So it's not an impossibly high standard, it's just a magnitude or two more difficult to get a jury acquittal on the basis of insanity. Keep in mind, though, that the outcome of an insanity case has no bearing on how long the defendant can be committed to a mental facility. Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983).
She's not an ambulance chaser. Ambulance chasers are guys like me who spend tons on TV ads. And I don't just chase them, I catch them.
Best get crackin'
Similar threads
