Doctor Fate wrote:Gun ownership is a right; not a gift from the government.

Speaking of gifts from the government:

TUCSON, Ariz. — The man accused of wounding U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killing six is mentally incompetent to stand trial, a judge ruled Wednesday after U.S. Marshals dragged the man out of the courtroom because of an angry outburst.

As survivors of the deadly January attack looked on, Jared Lee Loughner lowered his head, raised it and said what sounded like “Thank you for the freak show. She died in front of me.”

I suppose this makes perfect sense to statists, but I just have a hard time seeing any kind of justice in this ruling. If you are capable of carrying out a mass murder you are capable of being put away for that crime. It wasn't like he ran out into the street and randomly stabbed someone after watching the Oprah finale or something. Heavens to Betsy he said in court "She died in front of me."

Neal Anderth wrote:I suppose this makes perfect sense to statists, but I just have a hard time seeing any kind of justice in this ruling. If you are capable of carrying out a mass murder you are capable of being put away for that crime. It wasn't like he ran out into the street and randomly stabbed someone after watching the Oprah finale or something. Heavens to Betsy he said in court "She died in front of me."

Dude do you understand what it means to be judged incompetent to stand trial? It means he will be sent to the secured mental hospital where he will be treated until he is competent. At which time he will stand trial for his crimes.

And after he is "competent" to stand trial, the defense has a gifted defense. I can hear it now...

"Even the judge declared he was unfit to stand trial. Do you really think my client was sane at the time of the crime, then declared incompetent, and is now fit again? Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, that is hard to believe."

Russ, you know a great deal more when it comes to the legal system, but that line of thinking does not make sense to me.

Not at all Brad. You are arguing two different standards. Competent to stand trial just means he understands that he is on trial for a crime and can assist in his own defense. On the other hand, mental incapacity as a defense has a much higher standard. First the burden of proof is on the defendent. He has to prove it by a preponderence of the evidence that as a result of mental disease or defect he;

Did not know what he was doing was wrong or did not know the nature and quality of the act he committed (McNaughten Test)
or
lacked the capacity of control his acts to the requirement of the law (Freeman Test)

It would depend on which test Arizona uses (most likely the first as that is the majority test) which standard had to be met.

Then if he is found not guilty for reason of mental disease or defect, he doesn't just go free. He is remanded to a secured mental facility until he is deemed curred and no longer a threat to himself or society.

I would hope that is what happens. (I hate the insanity defense)

bbauska wrote:(I hate the insanity defense)

I am curious why? If a person truly didn't know what they were doing due to a medical issue, should they be held responsible, i.e. a person shoots someone because he actually sees him as the black knight riding down on him to slay him with a sword.

Any way, it is my understanding not many people actually try it because the incarceration is usually longer then the usual prision sentence for the underlying crime.

Neal Anderth wrote:
As survivors of the deadly January attack looked on, Jared Lee Loughner lowered his head, raised it and said what sounded like “Thank you for the freak show. She died in front of me.”

I suppose this makes perfect sense to statists, but I just have a hard time seeing any kind of justice in this ruling. If you are capable of carrying out a mass murder you are capable of being put away for that crime. It wasn't like he ran out into the street and randomly stabbed someone after watching the Oprah finale or something. Heavens to Betsy he said in court "She died in front of me."

I fail to see what that has to do with statism. There are procedures and protections in place to guarantee a fair trial. That's one of them.
Don't see a way to make the whole process easier on victims and their families if a fair trial is held to be one of the most important rights in a modern democracy.

Reciprocity/a meeting of the minds/mutual assent would demand that justice reflect what we would want done if we suffered the loss.

Bbauska and I are saying that if it was our wife and kids that had been mass murdered (in this exact situation), we'd want the man arrested, the matter investigated, and then for a jury to render to render punishment commensurate with the deed.

Now unless you and Archduke are different sorts of men who wouldn't want the same sort of outcome as bbauska and I if it was your wife and kids that were murdered just because the guy wasn't right in the head, then feel free to step up to the plate and say so.

The reason I do not like the defense is because it is used as a defense to keep someone off death row. Loughner committed an indefensible heinous crime, and deserves the maximum if found guilty. I do not believe being kept alive in a mental institution at the government's expense is fair to society.

Neal Anderth wrote:Now unless you and Archduke are different sorts of men who wouldn't want the same sort of outcome as bbauska and I if it was your wife and kids that were murdered just because the guy wasn't right in the head, then feel free to step up to the plate and say so.

I'll step up to the plate. If the guy who killed my wife and children didn't have the slightest idea he was on trial, i.e. he is sitting at the la la land, I wouldn't want him to stand trial. At least not until he was medicated enough to understand it.

You know why. I would want the @#$! to suffer. I would want the @#$! to understand how badly his life was going to be screwed up by the acts of what he did.

Maybe we're not so far apart on this.

bbauska wrote:The reason I do not like the defense is because it is used as a defense to keep someone off death row.

You would really want death row for a guy if he thought he was stabbing a orange and not a person's head because of a mental defect?

Yes, I do. Society must have justice.

Are you saying the Loughner thought he was killing "an orange"? No, he was not. He gathered weapons, told people what he wanted to do, and planned the attack. It seems TOTALLY insane (word meant, btw) to think he is not sane enough to try him.

Are all mass murderers crazy? Probably. Do they deserve insanity defenses? Not in my world. Then again, I am a black/white type person. (Did you kill someone and were found guilty? Then thank you for playing, your services are no longer needed in this world. Bang...)

nice, well put!

maybe you can add a second bang, just in case the first one didn't do the job well enough?

Tom, it was my job to not miss; perhaps you forgot my previous vocation.