Posted by trouble on March 12, 2002, at 1:37:19
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing » trouble, posted by Mitchell on March 11, 2002, at 21:28:42
NO, I believe it's the M'Naughten Rule in Texas, which IMO means that we do not mandate that people behave in ways that are impossible for them, but it is not always interpreted that way by the judiciary. The general consensus seems to be that Hinkley spoiled the insanity defense for all comers thereafter, but in '79 my brother used the insanity defense in the ultra-liberal state of Minnesota, and his life history validated its use, but it was denied and that was befrore Hinkley so I think there's something else going on, competing psychiatric testimony, jury nullification, slippery interpretations of M'Naughton, which seems terribly outdated anyway and so on. There's alot of talk about a classification of "guilty but insane" and it sounds sensible to me, but where is it in practice? Is that what is meant by the Ali law? I'm not familiar w/that.
thanks for your response
trouble
poster:trouble
thread:19491
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020305/msgs/19679.html