Naes Howard

[Pyle]

Gimme a friggin break, lets just use the concussion excuse for any crime, for anyone older than 15 who played pee wee football.

Given the fact that it has caused some of the most beloved NFL players to blow their heads off at 40 years old maybe we should take a look.

 

[Finwad32]

Honestly, I think this is disgusting. They're grasping at straws to defend a young man, mental illness or not, that stabbed two other individuals multiple times with the intent to cause harm.

 

[Finwad32]

Given the fact that it has caused some of the most beloved NFL players to blow their heads off at 40 years old maybe we should take a look.

What's going to be determined? There's currently no testing to determine anything definitive. The only thing you could determine is CTE - which you'd have to remove his brain to do, so that's probably a no go.

 

[Pyle]

What's going to be determined? There's currently no testing to determine anything definitive. The only thing you could determine is CTE - which you'd have to remove his brain to do, so that's probably a no go.

Why is that a no go? Kidding of course. The point of my post though is to point out that maybe it shouldn't be so readily dismissed either. As our knowledge of the brain evolves so should our attitudes about what types of things a broken brain can actually cause someone to do.

 

[Finwad32]

Why is that a no go? Kidding of course. The point of my post though is to point out that maybe it shouldn't be so readily dismissed either. As our knowledge of the brain evolves so should our attitudes about what types of things a broken brain can actually cause someone to do.

I don't disagree that it could be a factor; my problem is in the court of law, we should deal with fact. And, unfortunately, I don't know if that's currently a possibility.

 

[tep624]

The good ol' not knowing right from wrong defense. Defense lawyers, gotta love em.

 

[retro44]

I don't disagree that it could be a factor; my problem is in the court of law, we should deal with fact. And, unfortunately, I don't know if that's currently a possibility.

From someone who I know really,really well who watched over him in jail says he has real issues.Not all there and he knows when someone who is acting and not for the most part.

 

[bcubs9497]

None of that changes the fact that he damned near murdered two people. At the very least, he needs to do a lot of time.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

The good ol' not knowing right from wrong defense. Defense lawyers, gotta love em.

Well, that's the basis of leading that someone lacks the ability to form the intent, to commit a crime and to appreciate the difference between right and wrong.
We need to take a steong look at how we treat mental health in this country.
Not being able to compel treatment sometimes leaves few, of any, options to incarceration.

 

[tep624]

Well, that's the basis of leading that someone lacks the ability to form the intent, to commit a crime and to appreciate the difference between right and wrong.
We need to take a steong look at how we treat mental health in this country.
Not being able to compel treatment sometimes leaves few, of any, options to incarceration.

6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other. The mental health aspect is irrelevant to me. He attempted to kill two people. Either he's mentally unstable and unsafe to be on the streets or he's mentally stable and unsafe to be on the streets. Either way he belongs incarcerated, whether it's in prison or in a mental institution.

 

[CuseOnly]

Given the fact that it has caused some of the most beloved NFL players to blow their heads off at 40 years old maybe we should take a look.

I guess I just don't understand the purpose of any insanity, incompetence or mental instability defense in a court especially for a violent crime.

What is the end game and the purpose of letting these folks off lighter than folks who "knew it was wrong and a crime".

1 - They still committed a crime and should be held accountable
2 - They are still a danger to society
3 - If they haven't learned that it's wrong by now (regardless of age) they probably never will and are therefor still a danger to society

We lock up folks who commit violent crimes if they are competent to stand trial but with folks who aren't they have different rules. Seems we should lock up "incompetent" folks for longer not be lax on the sentencing. If that were the precedent, nobody would be using insanity defenses.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

I guess I just don't understand the purpose of any insanity, incompetence or mental instability defense in a court especially for a violent crime.

What is the end game and the purpose of letting these folks off lighter than folks who "knew it was wrong and a crime".

1 - They still committed a crime and should be held accountable
2 - They are still a danger to society
3 - If they haven't learned that it's wrong by now (regardless of age) they probably never will and are therefor still a danger to society

We lock up folks who commit violent crimes if they are competent to stand trial but with folks who aren't they have different rules. Seems we should lock up "incompetent" folks for longer not be lax on the sentencing. If that were the precedent, nobody would be using insanity defenses.

We also give lighter sentences to people for "attempted murder" than "murder". I guess you get years off your sentence for being a poor shot.

 

[CuseOnly]

We also give lighter sentences to people for "attempted murder" than "murder". I guess you get years off your sentence for being a poor shot.

It all makes sense now...

 

[Finwad32]

The peanut butter defense... Works everytime

 

[bcubs9497]

The peanut butter defense... Works everytime

We can thank Dan Sickles for that...

 

[FAL]

We can thank Dan Sickles for that...

That Dan Sickles...the guy who murdered his wife's lover in broad daylight on a busy street...and got away with it by pleading temporary insanity?

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

The peanut butter defense... Works everytime

I honestly thought you were referencing this...

 

[SU in Hershey]

6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other. The mental health aspect is irrelevant to me. He attempted to kill two people. Either he's mentally unstable and unsafe to be on the streets or he's mentally stable and unsafe to be on the streets. Either way he belongs incarcerated, whether it's in prison or in a mental institution.

Some would say there is little difference between the two institutions. To that I would say, it all depends on where you are "residing". I have worked briefly (physician) with correctional institutions and have been to several psychiatric institutions, all on a professional basis, and the variability in severity of the situation is marked. Regardless, I agree with your sentiment that a dangerous person is a dangerous person.

The question is, what is best for him with regard to any hope for recuperation (IF he is mentally ill), and how can we insure public safety from him as a potential threat? I don't know the young man or his situation, nor can I speak to the veracity of a mental illness defense on its own merits, but it is a valid question. The treatment of the mentally ill often reflects the values and evolution of a society. And there is a lot more to the notion of an ongoing mental health illness versus the temporary insanity plea. While the latter might be understandable given circumstances (blind rage, revenge, etc.), it is by definition, without precedent for that individual. Whereas a person with true mental health issues will generally have some sort of track record. Whether there are violence issues or not can be a predictor for future transgressions, but it is not necessary.

Finally, given the nebulous nature of concussions (see my post in the Eric Dungey thread), it is a very savvy legal maneuver as it introduces an easy avenue for "reasonable doubt". You can be prejudicial on the idea or his motives behind a mental illness defense, but all it takes is one juror to say, "You know, maybe there is a connection...", and you have won.

Now, treating mental health disorders, and especially mandating their treatment, is a topic not appropriate in this thread (but it is quite a topic). Regardless, I would feel safer knowing this young man is not walking the streets.

 

[tep624]

Some would say there is little difference between the two institutions. To that I would say, it all depends on where you are "residing". I have worked briefly (physician) with correctional institutions and have been to several psychiatric institutions, all on a professional basis, and the variability in severity of the situation is marked. Regardless, I agree with your sentiment that a dangerous person is a dangerous person.

The question is, what is best for him with regard to any hope for recuperation (IF he is mentally ill), and how can we insure public safety from him as a potential threat? I don't know the young man or his situation, nor can I speak to the veracity of a mental illness defense on its own merits, but it is a valid question. The treatment of the mentally ill often reflects the values and evolution of a society. And there is a lot more to the notion of an ongoing mental health illness versus the temporary insanity plea. While the latter might be understandable given circumstances (blind rage, revenge, etc.), it is by definition, without precedent for that individual. Whereas a person with true mental health issues will generally have some sort of track record. Whether there are violence issues or not can be a predictor for future transgressions, but it is not necessary.

Finally, given the nebulous nature of concussions (see my post in the Eric Dungey thread), it is a very savvy legal maneuver as it introduces an easy avenue for "reasonable doubt". You can be prejudicial on the idea or his motives behind a mental illness defense, but all it takes is one juror to say, "You know, maybe there is a connection...", and you have won.

Now, treating mental health disorders, and especially mandating their treatment, is a topic not appropriate in this thread (but it is quite a topic). Regardless, I would feel safer knowing this young man is not walking the streets.

Part of it is my general disgust for defense attorneys and how they manipulate the law into a game of misdirection, misinformation and technicalities. I absolutely acknowledge that I am heavily biased against them.

 

[SU in Hershey]

Part of it is my general disgust for defense attorneys and how they manipulate the law into a game of misdirection, misinformation and technicalities. I absolutely acknowledge that I am heavily biased against them.

I hear you! I certainly wasn't taking you to task for what you said. It's the old "a few ruin it for everybody" concept. When legitimate arguments are twisted, stretched and used more and more loosely, then it dilutes the original reasons and makes everyone after that sound disingenuous. I very much doubt that concussions could have anything to do with this young man's plight, but the door has been opened. Who knows what else may yet come of this? Will athletes seek to sue their schools, coaches, parents, pee-wee football associations, etc? Let's hope it doesn't get too crazy...pun very much intended

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Part of it is my general disgust for defense attorneys and how they manipulate the law into a game of misdirection, misinformation and technicalities. I absolutely acknowledge that I am heavily biased against them.

DAs and police hide witnesses, evidence and present half truths.

Without defense lawyers, the government would put away who it wants.

I once was assigned to do an appeal for a guy. The appellate court agreed with me that he was convicted of a crime that doesn't exist. He did 20 months in state prison, before I won his appeal, and got him out of prison and exonerated.
Look up on the case of Baba Ali, or all the good work of the innocence project.
Government is a necessary evil which must be kept in check.
Defense lawyers are part of that.
Sometimes, we represent bad people who did bad things. That's just part of the job. You can't do less than your best, no matter the client.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I guess I just don't understand the purpose of any insanity, incompetence or mental instability defense in a court especially for a violent crime.

What is the end game and the purpose of letting these folks off lighter than folks who "knew it was wrong and a crime".

1 - They still committed a crime and should be held accountable
2 - They are still a danger to society
3 - If they haven't learned that it's wrong by now (regardless of age) they probably never will and are therefor still a danger to society

We lock up folks who commit violent crimes if they are competent to stand trial but with folks who aren't they have different rules. Seems we should lock up "incompetent" folks for longer not be lax on the sentencing. If that were the precedent, nobody would be using insanity defenses.

Would you punish a 3 year who starts a fire the same as you would a 20 year old?
The issue is do they know right from wrong.
Very few insanity defenses work.