But, having a court-appointed lawyer if you can't afford one is part of due process - it makes the trial fair. This isn't Salem, for crying out loud.

Everyone has the right to persue appeals. You want to deny that to certain people? Which ones? Who gets to decide? Even if they didn't have a fair trial?

And again, money and fame have anything to do with this case how? It makes the accused in this case "another piece of garbage protected by America's crappy justice system. $$$$$$$" how?

The complaints you expressed were that "he'll even get an attorney to represent him in court, even though the evidence is there that he did this to that child" and "[o]nly in America where the criminal is protected.:rolleyes:" What in the world does that have to do with the rich and famous getting off easier?

I know, but it just seems like the people who have fame/money either get off, or get a lighter sentence.

I agree with you on the first part. And no, the money part doesn't apply to this case. I just brought the fame/money up as one of the things I don't agree with.

But, people who have fame/money rarely get a court-appointed lawyer. So, it doesn't relate to your original argument.

ETA: I'm referring to this post, where you said he shouldn't get a court-appointed attorney:

My original argument was based on the OJ case (which I wasn't trying to relate that to the original thread topic) was that he had money to hire expensive lawyers, and with his fame, I think that helps a lot. It's just that someone who may have been in a similar kind of situation without fame/fortune, I don't think the trial would've even lasted as long as it did. I was just using it as an ex. as of why I think some things are unfair. That's all I was doing.

This doesn't make any sense. I quoted your first post in this thread, where you clearly said you were hocked off that this person would get a court-appointed lawyer.

MY argument is that if you agree with due process, stop bitching about how people shouldn't get fair trials. If you think it's unfair that OJ got off, why would you go and make it worse by saying that he doesn't deserve an attorney whatsoever?

I was upset that he killed a two year old. The cracked ribs etc...

Yes, he should get a fair trial, I just hate it when they know they're guilty and then they try to set up some kind of plea bargain...insanity etc. And if he did kill that child, I'm going to continue to think he should burn in hell for that.

That's completely fine, just be aware that if you make inflammatory remarks about how someone shouldn't get a fair trial just because you believe he or she is guilty, there are a lot of people on GC that are going to come at you for that. If you don't mind that, then fine, but it's happened about eleventy bazillion times now, and I don't want to see you complaining about the GC meanies, because you bring it on yourself.

I posted while you were making the edit. I didn't see it until I was done posting, then I responded to your edit.

What if he repents?

So in other words your original post in this thread -- being pissed off that he'll be protected by America's crappy justice system and will be represented by a lawyer -- actually had nothing to do with this thread? Just checking.

Meanwhile, insanity is not something one works out a plea deal on, nor does it mean you get to go home and live your life because, hey, you were insane. And prosecutors are not likely to agree to a plea deal unless it's also in the state's interest in some way -- a sure conviction on a lesser charge versus iffy convictions on a bigger charge, allocation of limited resources, etc.

Actually agzg, I responded about this to Xanthus when he made those negative remarks about my dad. I said from that point on there are certain people on here that I'm not going to respond/debate to based on just what you said. I don't mind people on here debating with me. In fact, I love to debate, even if I disagree, because I can still learn, a lot. But since we're all individual people who are going to have different opinions, I don't understand the anger from some people. It's the people who can't debate without name calling, degrading someone's intelligence level, etc that I'm not chatting with. I'm just not going to do it anymore, because nothing gets solved, that way. No, I'm not bringing anything on myself, I mean they can say whatever they want. I don't have to read or respond.

Yeah I've worked with some NGRIs. It's not a free trip to a vacation spot. You're committed to a mental hospital for an extended period of time, and even if you manage to get stable, slowly step down on services, and go to college etc. You're still watched by the state.

/figure I'm on her ignore list at this point, mental or otherwise.

Mmhmm. That post was out of line, and I think most of the people you've categorized as mean before called him on that. My point is that you have been known to bring it upon yourself, in terms of debates like this, and not posts like that. Even with a lot of the Xanthus stuff - you came at him first, and I wish you would remember that.

If he repents, then that's up to him and God, not me. Whatever decision God makes, He's justified in doing so.


Yep. Everyone says things sometimes out of anger.

I know they don't get to go home, but don't they get a lighter sentence if they plead insanity?

Not necessarily. Depends on the case/whether or not they're actually insane. I would think it would be worse to be locked up in a looney bin while being completely sane.

I think you and CG were the only two who called him on that. I chat with you all the time, and I never thought you were mean. At least not to me. Xanthus used to send me PMs that were out of line, so he came at me first!

Nope. And what if they actually are insane?

I agree, makes sense. lol

I would think that sometimes it would be hard to tell.

Usually you are tracked for at least 1/2 the time your sentence would be - which is possibly slightly less than the 1/3 time you usually get off for good behavior.

And you would not believe how many docs are very very good at keeping non-mentally ill people out of hospitals. Hell I couldn't get some of my mentally ill people INTO the hospital when they needed it as long as they weren't suicidal or homicidal RIGHT then.

You can't just say "i was insane!" It takes evaluation. And it's rare that they'll accept "I was insane but I'm not now." The NGRIs I know were still IN the mental health system decades later. They didn't get an easy out.

Not really.

Why? or how?

If you're not guility by reason of instanity, there is no "sentence" because you're not guilty. That doesn't mean you won't be involuntary committed to a mental institution.

There are two things that often get confused -- legally insane for criminal purposes and incompetent to stand trial. The law can vary from state to state on insanity.

For criminal purposes, insanity is a defense. Generally speaking, it means that the defendant, at the time of the crime, was unable to understand the difference between right and wrong, or more specifically that what he was doing was wrong, and therefore was unable to form the specific intent (mens rea) to do wrong that is necessary for criminal culpability.

As Drolefille says, you can't just say "I'm insane." Neither can a doctor. The jury has to be convinced of it.

Because you don't get to just say "I was insane then, but I'm perfectly fine now." Mental illness is diagnosable and psychiatrists and other professionals are trained in diagnosis. Particularly ones who work with law enforcement. If someone claims the voices made him kill his brother, and shows no signs of psychotic or schizophrenic symptoms it's not going to fly.

And you have to convince the jury as MC said.

As for the not fit to stand trial, they usually get committed until they ARE fit to stand trial.
There are more mentally ill people in prison than "sane" people who dodge jail time with an insanity plea.

As far as NGRI/guilty but insane pleas go, they are very hard to prove. As much as the media portrays them as an easy way for people to get a lightened sentence, they're not. There are two points of insanity (which is a legal term, not a psychiatric/medical term). The first is the pre-existing condition, the second is that the condition prevented the person from knowing right from wrong at the time of the crime. Usually the latter is disproved by the defendant's attempts to cover the crime. Usually the people who use these defenses effectively are the ones who genuinely had no idea what they were doing at the time.

Also (and I know this varies from state to state) but in some states NGRI is a worse sentence. As far as I know, because you aren't sentenced for an amount of time, you can be held indefinitely in a mental health facility as long as the state sees fit.

Yes, they get to determine if you're safe to be released or not.

I remember two summers ago, where I used to work, we got into a discussion similar to what we're discussing here, and my boss told me that based on my views, I would never get picked for jury duty. And I've always wanted participate in something like that. I'm not sure how that process works. Who gets picked and who doesn't?

This is what I was trying to get at before when I said I wasn't "connecting the dots" because it wasn't making any sense whatsoever...glad to know it was unrelated. Just like the OJ connection. I'm finally feeling like I'm in the loop.

cheerfulgreek:In our county, registered voters end up getting jury duty through a drawing but they may not make it onto a jury after interviews. The lawyers each get to choose part of the jury based on answers to their questions. They might not want young mothers on a jury that will try a murderer of a young mother or child, for instance. Or someone who's had their identity stolen (like our DA :eek:) on the jury trying someone who stole identities.

I've never made criminal juries, only civil because when the lawyers heard that I taught at one of the jails, they'd say, "NEXT!":D

My boss told me the same thing. He used to tease about my views and he said after I was interviewed they would say "next" right after I answered the first question. lol

The ones here illegally from Mexico?

Jury pools are drawn from things like drivers license lists, voting registration, etc. As a case comes up for trial, a group of jurors is brought into the courtroom, and names are drawn until they have enough people to fill the jury. Those people are asked questions relevant to the case and their service on the jury -- depending on the court and location, the questions are either directly from the lawyers or the judge asks questions submitted by the lawyers. Like carnation says, the questions go to things like whether they or someone in their families have ever been victims of a similar crime, whether they know anyone involved, how much they may have read in the paper or heard on the news, whether they've already formed any opinions and whether they can put aside any previous opinions and decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial and the law as explained by the judge. Some questions may be the "raise your hand if" type and some may be done prospective juror by prospective juror.

A lawyer can challenge any juror "for cause," which basically means that an answer the juror has given indicates he can't be impartial or otherwise carry out a juror's duty. On a challenge for cause, the court decides whether to excuse the juror. For example, if a prospective juror in a capital case says he doesn't believe in the death penalty, he'll be excused for cause. Ditto someone who says that she thinks a defendant must be guilty or he wouldn't have been charged to begin with.

Each side also gets a given number of "preremptory challenges." These can be used to exclude any juror without giving a reason.

If someone is excused, either for cause or on a preremptory challenge, then another name is drawn and the questions start over.

Once you have the requisite number of jurors (usually 12, but some jurisdictions allow for a smaller number in certain kinds of cases), plus any alternates if there will be alternates, then the jury is empaneled and everyone else is sent back to the jury waiting room for another case.

Actually the 'asshat' picture wasn't because you were posting a thread on astronomy. But whatever, i'm not going to rehash what that was for, because you'll never get it.

And with the subway (and walmart) thing, Clearly you'll NEVER get it. You didn't then and you won't now. No point trying to beat a dead horse.

Well, WTF kind of American cares about the World Cup? I didn't know that Texans were excluded from liking soccer.

Actually you would think more Texan soccer fans considering how many Mexican and South American families are located there.

Thanks for posting this, MC.:)

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

Responding to an earlier question:

Yes. This is a robust finding. Empirically, people treat their genetic children much better than they treat stepchildren. See this article. http://www.toddkshackelford.com/down...rd-VV-2004.pdf

In this study of 400,000 U.S. homicides, small children were eight times more likely to be killed by a stepfather than by a genetic father.
________
Teen live

How so? I know plenty of people who very involved fathers and stepfathers. Why would a child not be able to have both?