Man Kills 2 Year Old Step-Daughter Over Crying During The World Cup

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Why? or how?

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.

[GatorGirl27]

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by GatorGirl27

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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?

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[carnation]

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 ) 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!"

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by carnation

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 ) 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!"

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

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by 33girl

WTF kind of Texan cares about the World Cup?

The ones here illegally from Mexico?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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?

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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

It says "sandwich artist" on their name tag. And no, there isn't anything hard about making a sandwich. What about the time you called me an "asshat" for posting a thread about astronomy, come to find out it's an interest of yours, too. "I've always had an interest in planets, I just don't like physics."--whatever!

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.

Originally Posted by 33girl

WTF kind of Texan cares about the World Cup?

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

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Thanks for posting this, MC.

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

[Low C Sharp]

Responding to an earlier question:

Do you have a report to back this up? I'd be interested in reading it.
It seems to me that someone depraved enough to cause significant harm to a child would do it whether or not it was his/her biological child.

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

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

When the fathers stick around, there is no room for a stepfather.

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