====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Your essay does not contradict what I reported. Adding the words "For all practical purposes" to your sentence " the insanity defense is a thing of the past" does not change the law as such. It may reflect the reality; to determine that we would have to examine the record in such cases since the adoption of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, as revealed in the caselaw. However, I suspect, without checking, that the defense is often invoked by defense counsel in situations such as one that arouses such interest on this list. Watch what arguments Loughner's lawyers raise in his trial. A successful defense on those grounds -- not legally barred (yet) in Arizona, could make new law in the good old USA. Perhaps, given your insistence that he is simply insane and not motivated in any way politically, you could help rally support for his defense. He is certainly going to need it, the poor bugger. Richard -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: January 13, 2011 7:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Marxism] The Insanity Defense I am not sure if Richard Fidler read what I wrote here the other day, but I feel compelled to repeat it since he questions whether the insanity plea can still be used in American courts. It was originally sent to the list nearly 7 years ago. [snip] For all practical purposes, the insanity defense is a thing of the past. It was first introduced in Great Britain in the 1830s, a time of child labor and other cruelties that figure large in the novels of Charles Dickens. The insanity defense was first used in the case of an 1843 assassination attempt on British Prime Minister Robert Peel by a psychotic individual named Daniel M'Naghten. When a physician testified that M'Naghten was insane, the prosecution agreed to stop the case and the defendant was declared insane despite protests from Queen Victoria and the House of Lords. The M'Naghten Rule can be simply described as a "right and wrong" test. The jury must answer two questions: (1) did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime?; or (2) did the defendant understand that his actions were wrong? When psychotic individuals were on trial without a prior history of hospitalization, it was somewhat more difficult to find them not guilty by reason of insanity. Nowadays, the fact that Scott Louis Panetti was in mental hospitals 14 times previous to the murder of his in-laws had no effect on the trial. So what happened? In a word, John Hinckley. [snip] ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rfidler_8%40sympati co.ca ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
