"GUILTY!"... now how hard was that?

[underworld]

F**king loons for jurors!

hung jury

[Fairweather]

Seattle dipshits.

[ashw_justin]

"When cases are very difficult for jurors, they almost always revert to the definition of words," Anthony said. "They were divided at a really fundamental level as opposed to factual"

Talk about a dipshit. The jurors were just trying to do their job. It's not their fault if the court didn't have the competence/balls to tell them, factually, what does or does not qualify as 'not guilty by reason of insanity.'

[mattp]

It's not their fault if the court didn't have the competence/balls to tell them, factually, what does or does not qualify as 'not guilty by reason of insanity.'

 

Do you know anything about what you are talking about here?

[builder206]

I was on a murder jury once. Voir dire was 2 weeks, the trial was over 5. The instructions to the jury ran to 67 pages. Don't do any second-guessing about it unless you were one of the people inside the process.

[underworld]

people here love second guessing w/o actually being there...

 

check out the 'iraq' thread

 

 

[mattp]

Jury instructions are complicated and confusing to be sure but there is a long history and a lot of thought behind that 67 page packet. All or nearly all of of it is standard language and, in fact, the judge may have a choice between two or three "pattern" instructions on an issue like what constitutes the insanity defense, but absolutely no authority to tell them "factually" what constitutes the insanity defense and anybody who believes that a jury should be deciding this matter in the first place would not want a judge to do so.

[builder206]

In my story, 3 goons tortured and gunned down a man in his wife's house in front of his wife, in-laws, and 2 y.o. son. In general it was pretty clear they did it but long before we came to an end, there was some mighty fine hair-splitting going on about exactly what combination of what crimes each socipath should be convicted of.

 

I suggest that if you plan on committing a crime, consult an attorney first.

 

I also recommend that if you ever get a jury summons, ignore it. (That's a crime, by the way)

[mattp]

there was some mighty fine hair-splitting going on about exactly what combination of what crimes each socipath should be convicted of.

 

A major reason for this is that we don't trust judges to exercise broad discretion when sentencing so we have developed all these different specific charges in order that, once a jury decides what actually happened, the sentence is limited to a specific range.

[builder206]

Sometimes I think the French system of appointing judges after they have undergone some intensive training may be a better way to go than electing judges as we do. On the other hand, all the jurors I served with were plenty sharp enough to follow long arguments and remember in a useful way facts and statements made days and weeks apart. Voir dire was exhaustive.

[mattp]

As I understand it, in the French system the Judge is much more active in overseeing the trial: they direct the general course of inquiry and pose the questions. We rely upon two opposing sides, prosecutor and defense, or plaintiff and defendant, neither of which is expected to tell the truth, and the judge is only supposed to serve as referee to enforce rules hoped to keep one side from having unfair advantage.

[Hugh Conway]

people here love second guessing w/o actually being there...

 

check out the 'iraq' thread

 

we should do away with this pesky democracy thing

[canyondweller]

I'm guessing Naveed has an "accident", in the not too distant future.

[tomtom]

I think they were hung on what the definition of "is" is. If the sitting President (who is a lawyer) couldn't understand it, how could the average citizen?

[Hugh Conway]

I think they were hung on what the definition of "is" is. If the sitting President (who is a lawyer) couldn't understand it, how could the average citizen?

 

we've moved on to a president who can't spell it

 

 

thank Tacoma

[ivan]

wow - i don't remember this story - i imagine this guy will pay in time, but it does illustrate the nasty nature of the world, of the legal system and of mental illness. remember the nice guy everyone loved in "a beautiful mind?" he could have just as easily ended up like this fucktard, as he also apparently was wont to go off on huge anti-semetic rants during his schizo-episodes.

[ashw_justin]

It's not their fault if the court didn't have the competence/balls to tell them, factually, what does or does not qualify as 'not guilty by reason of insanity.'

 

Do you know anything about what you are talking about here?

That was just my attempt at 'counterpoint,' oh wise one. Or do you just want to have a circle-jerk in here?

 

Just blame it on the jury. Classic. Forgive me, but isn't that about as simple-minded as it gets?

[mattp]

Please explain: what is "counterpoint?" It looked to me as if you said the jury hung because the judge lacked competence/balls. I don't know if the judge mishandled the matter or not, but I didn't see much indication of such a problem in any of the articles I read.

[ashw_justin]

Point: it's all the juror's fault.

Counterpoint: no it's not.

I'm not claiming a dissertation here. I just responded in kind.

 

ps. I agree, the papers also dwell on the jurors. Reporting: it's just that easy.

[mattp]

Aha. I'm with you now.

[astrov]

mattp, you're generally right, and I appreciate your reasoned style. In fact, the insanity defense applicable in each case varies by jurisdiction. In a majority of jurisdictions in the US, it's still the "M'Naghten" test, and it appears from the seattle times article that M’Naghten is the law in washington state. Under the "M'Naghten" test, there are two ways for the defendant to succeed in his excuse: show that he was unaware of what he was doing while he did it, or show that while he did it he was unable to discern right from wrong apropos the act he committed. This standard is mentioned in the Times article.

 

There are several alternative insanity defenses. Arizona has one that particularly hard for defendants.

 

Apart from what Matt said:

 

Since the insanity defense is an "excuse" defense, the legislature may place the burden of persuasion on either the defense or the prosecution in a criminal trial. I don't know the law in Washington, but in this trial the prosecution may have borne the burden of proving to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other standard- maybe only by "clear and convincing" evidence) that the defendant was sane. So we can't assume that the jury was hung solely because the defense lawyers were being conniving and manipulating words. It's possible that psychiatric testimony from both sides put a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds about the defendant's sanity- and there's nothing "fucked up" (or whatever) about this unless you're not willing to concede the existence of insanity.

 

On a personal level, I have a friend from college who has been clinically diagnosed with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. His father has both too. At times, his behavior is certifiably insane. There is no question about it, since there’s no disagreement among the psychiatrists who require him to stay in the hospital during his episodes. While I would want "justice to be done" if he ever did something to hurt someone else, I would want an insanity defense available to him because he is truly capable of insane behavior at times. It's not an affectation. I suggest getting to know someone certifiably "crazy" before writing off the insanity defense wholesale.

 

Lastly, the insanity defense is an "excuse" defense. An acquittal by reason of insanity doesn't seek to justify the action; it just says that the actor was in such a state of mind as to render it impossible to adjudge him guilty in our scheme of criminal law. Our system of criminal law would lack credibility if it punished incompetents- minors, the insane, automatons indiscriminately, since guilt is founded on “mens rea”. (Culpable mental state.) A fortiori if you're "insane" (it's a legal term) you cannot be culpable. You cannot form culpable mental states.

 

The consequences of NGRI are not pretty- likely involuntary commitment in an institution for the criminally insane. The defendant can be kept there for longer than he would have been kept in jail, too.

 

And let it be known that I’m not defending the defendant in this case. I’m suggesting that the institution and the “insanity defense” (I use the term colloquially) have more legitimacy than this outcome may suggest to an uncritical observer. I agree that what the defendant did was horrible and I feel sorry for the victims. And as someone said in the Times article, loading up a rifle and driving across the mountains suggests premeditation. Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder should rightly be punished as first degree murder.

 

[No. 13 Baby]

I think they were hung on what the definition of "is" is. If the sitting President (who is a lawyer) couldn't understand it, how could the average citizen?

 

The closest the sitting president came to being a lawyer was applying to law school -- to avoid serving in Vietnam.

 

He was denied admission. Sure sucks when you're not a legacy.

[ashw_justin]

Ah, ze old media bait-and-switch!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/365995_jewishfed06.html

The jury's deadlock in the case centered mainly on whether Haq acted with premeditation or intent -- not so much whether he was insane, one juror said Thursday.

And then there's this...

On the five attempted-murder charges, the split differed greatly, in part because some jurors considered whether each woman was shot before or after Haq announced that anyone who called 911 would be killed.

Jurors unanimously found Haq not guilty of attempted first-degree murder in the shooting of Carol Goldman, the first victim, in their only verdict in the case. Some believed he shot her reactively when a colleague told her to call 911, the juror said.

[STP]

There was a discussion on NPR the other day about the mental insanity defense in Washington state. The commentator stated, "Would the perpetrator have been deterred if a policeman had been in the room"? If he had, then the shooter could not be granted the mental insanity defense. Similarily, if he shot after seeing that someone was calling 911 meant he realized what he was doing, IOW, he wasn't out of his mind. But then, the fact that he drove from the Tri-Cities to Seattle with a gun seems, at face value, to be premediated intent. So, it doesn't seem so clearcut.

 

No doubt, a deadly crime was committed that won't go unpunished. Though it's a shame that it hinges on what charges the prosecutor pushed. It'll be retried. As a layperson I can't say I understand the workings behind the legal process. Personally, in other cases you often wonder what other factors came into play when charges are filed, things such as race and social status of the defendant. I'm thinking specifically of black males, not defending them but aware of the different in incarceration and such when the defendant is found guilty of the decided charges in court and its subsequent sentencing.

 

Also, as an aside, I wonder if things would have occurred as they did if one of the victims had a concealed weapon. Not saying that this is the solution, that everyone should arm themselves, but your defense shouldn't be automatically ceded to the authorities such as waiting for the police to arrive.

 

Another thing...the presence of guns alone won't necessarily lead to violence...violence is inherent in some situations e.g., 7 reported dead in Tokyo stabbing rampage. Seems the root threat is in the instability of the individual, that that person uses whatever is at his disposal to commit crime. That's a tough nut to crack.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

wow - i don't remember this story - i imagine this guy will pay in time, but it does illustrate the nasty nature of the world, of the legal system and of mental illness. remember the nice guy everyone loved in "a beautiful mind?" he could have just as easily ended up like this fucktard, as he also apparently was wont to go off on huge anti-semetic rants during his schizo-episodes.

 

Every society must decide what to do with its broken machines. Arguing about guilt or innocence in cases of severe mental illness is as pointless as requiring a quadroplegic to compete in the decathlon.