Defending the insanity defense

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , Los Angeles Times
  • Updated: November 30, 2012 - 2:51 PM

The Supreme Court should have used an Idaho case to make it clear that due process requires that an insanity defense be available. Instead, it refused to take up the matter.

  • 4
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 4 of 4
nomedsNov. 30, 12 6:27 PM

As a lawyer, I am happy that the SC didn't entertain this issue, since an insanity defense should never be allowed. Some experts have said that 50% of the population is already mentally ill. If that is the case, then everybody would get off by simply pleading insanity. Everybody should be made responsible for their actions. No exceptions.

3
6
poodlemangNov. 30, 12 7:40 PM

Hang 'em high not matter what drove 'em to it.

2
6
windigolakeDec. 1, 12 6:46 AM

As a lawyer, how can one defend punishing a person who doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. (I, too, am an attorney, although I don't practice criminal law.) That's like putting a four-year old in prison for life because he shot his brother with Dad's gun while playing cops. The insanity defense is rare, but it is essential to a civilized society.

4
2
firefight41Dec. 1, 12 8:23 AM

Whenever a heinous crime is committed the person is mentally ill. That person needs treatment, not punishment.

3
1
  • 1 - 4 of 4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT