Loughner's "Not Guilty" plea

[DiveCon]

The Insanity Defense Among the States - Criminal Law

ARIZONA The state uses a modified version of the M'Naghten Rule. The burden of proof is on the defendant. A guilty but insane verdict is allowed.

M'Naghten Rules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course that will only be valid in the state courts not sure how it works for the federal charges he is facing

The Federal process is similar, he will plead not guilty but probably change it to not guilty by reason of insanity. There's a procedure that has to be followed, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure pretty much sets out everything that has to happen, how and when evidence of his mental state is disclosed to the prosecution and the Court, and other goodies:

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - Rule 12.2

The Federal standard is similar to the AZ law:

§ 17. Insanity defense

(a) Affirmative Defense.— It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

(b) Burden of Proof.— The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

United States Code: Title 18,17. Insanity defense | LII / Legal Information Institute

i believe he will be hard pressed to prove that
with all the stuff he posted online before doing it
he knew what he was going to do, and even told his friends "goodbye"

 

[goldcatt]

of course that will only be valid in the state courts not sure how it works for the federal charges he is facing

The Federal process is similar, he will plead not guilty but probably change it to not guilty by reason of insanity. There's a procedure that has to be followed, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure pretty much sets out everything that has to happen, how and when evidence of his mental state is disclosed to the prosecution and the Court, and other goodies:

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - Rule 12.2

The Federal standard is similar to the AZ law:

§ 17. Insanity defense

(a) Affirmative Defense.— It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

(b) Burden of Proof.— The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

United States Code: Title 18,17. Insanity defense | LII / Legal Information Institute

i believe he will be hard pressed to prove that
with all the stuff he posted online before doing it
he knew what he was going to do, and even told his friends "goodbye"

He knew what he was going to do. He planned it. But that proves nothing. It's a very specific test, mental competence has nothing to do with it. It's a question of quality, not necessarily degree.

Usually the defense is successful where the defendant has a psychosis, if he's hearing voices or seeing hallucinations or otherwise perceives reality in a way that is delusional. If whatever his problem is makes him believe wrong is right, or renders him incapable of discerning right and wrong, then he is in fact legally insane no matter how well he can plan or type or anything else.

Like the people who think they're receiving instructions from God, as one readily familiar example. Or those who believe they're being sent on a mission by law enforcement or the government. In those situations they can honestly believe they are doing right and good, plan it out, make their preparations, prepare to be "martyred"....it happens.

It's going to take a lot of exams and probably testimony before any of us have that answer. I don't know how it will turn out. But never say never.

 

[DiveCon]

The Federal process is similar, he will plead not guilty but probably change it to not guilty by reason of insanity. There's a procedure that has to be followed, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure pretty much sets out everything that has to happen, how and when evidence of his mental state is disclosed to the prosecution and the Court, and other goodies:

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - Rule 12.2

The Federal standard is similar to the AZ law:



United States Code: Title 18,17. Insanity defense | LII / Legal Information Institute

i believe he will be hard pressed to prove that
with all the stuff he posted online before doing it
he knew what he was going to do, and even told his friends "goodbye"

He knew what he was going to do. He planned it. But that proves nothing. It's a very specific test, mental competence has nothing to do with it. It's a question of quality, not necessarily degree.

Usually the defense is successful where the defendant has a psychosis, if he's hearing voices or seeing hallucinations or otherwise perceives reality in a way that is delusional. If whatever his problem is makes him believe wrong is right, or renders him incapable of discerning right and wrong, then he is in fact legally insane no matter how well he can plan or type or anything else.

Like the people who think they're receiving instructions from God, as one readily familiar example. Or those who believe they're being sent on a mission by law enforcement or the government. In those situations they can honestly believe they are doing right and good, plan it out, make their preparations, prepare to be "martyred"....it happens.

It's going to take a lot of exams and probably testimony before any of us have that answer. I don't know how it will turn out. But never say never.

yes, but dont you think him asking for forgiveness BEFORE he did it shows he knew what he was about to do was wrong before he did it?
i think that alone will destroy his attempt as the insanity defense

 

[AllieBaba]

The guy is crazy and I don't want to see anyone put to death. Undoubtedly there are people who deserve it, and he probably is one; even if he's crazy he's obviously a serious menace and it isn't likely to get better with time; but I can't support the death penalty.

Or vigilantism. I certainly have no problem with people defending themselves and others; but to cold blooded and calulatedly take the law in your own hands to dispense "justice" sends a chill down my spine.

 

[whitehall]

He didn't say he wasn't guilty by reason of insanity. He said he didn't do it.

 

[goldcatt]

i believe he will be hard pressed to prove that
with all the stuff he posted online before doing it
he knew what he was going to do, and even told his friends "goodbye"

He knew what he was going to do. He planned it. But that proves nothing. It's a very specific test, mental competence has nothing to do with it. It's a question of quality, not necessarily degree.

Usually the defense is successful where the defendant has a psychosis, if he's hearing voices or seeing hallucinations or otherwise perceives reality in a way that is delusional. If whatever his problem is makes him believe wrong is right, or renders him incapable of discerning right and wrong, then he is in fact legally insane no matter how well he can plan or type or anything else.

Like the people who think they're receiving instructions from God, as one readily familiar example. Or those who believe they're being sent on a mission by law enforcement or the government. In those situations they can honestly believe they are doing right and good, plan it out, make their preparations, prepare to be "martyred"....it happens.

It's going to take a lot of exams and probably testimony before any of us have that answer. I don't know how it will turn out. But never say never.

yes, but dont you think him asking for forgiveness BEFORE he did it shows he knew what he was about to do was wrong before he did it?
i think that alone will destroy his attempt as the insanity defense

Make it harder? Probably. Destroy? Not necessarily. It'll be up to the experts, and if it's at all in question he'll have to get it past a jury.

But that jury will have a lot more information than we do now. What that information will say.....?

 

[DiveCon]

He knew what he was going to do. He planned it. But that proves nothing. It's a very specific test, mental competence has nothing to do with it. It's a question of quality, not necessarily degree.

Usually the defense is successful where the defendant has a psychosis, if he's hearing voices or seeing hallucinations or otherwise perceives reality in a way that is delusional. If whatever his problem is makes him believe wrong is right, or renders him incapable of discerning right and wrong, then he is in fact legally insane no matter how well he can plan or type or anything else.

Like the people who think they're receiving instructions from God, as one readily familiar example. Or those who believe they're being sent on a mission by law enforcement or the government. In those situations they can honestly believe they are doing right and good, plan it out, make their preparations, prepare to be "martyred"....it happens.

It's going to take a lot of exams and probably testimony before any of us have that answer. I don't know how it will turn out. But never say never.

yes, but dont you think him asking for forgiveness BEFORE he did it shows he knew what he was about to do was wrong before he did it?
i think that alone will destroy his attempt as the insanity defense

Make it harder? Probably. Destroy? Not necessarily. It'll be up to the experts, and if it's at all in question he'll have to get it past a jury.

But that jury will have a lot more information than we do now. What that information will say.....?

true
and what will and wont be allowed to be entered as evidence
the defense might just get his web post disallowed
i bet they at least try

 

[goldcatt]

yes, but dont you think him asking for forgiveness BEFORE he did it shows he knew what he was about to do was wrong before he did it?
i think that alone will destroy his attempt as the insanity defense

Make it harder? Probably. Destroy? Not necessarily. It'll be up to the experts, and if it's at all in question he'll have to get it past a jury.

But that jury will have a lot more information than we do now. What that information will say.....?

true
and what will and wont be allowed to be entered as evidence
the defense might just get his web post disallowed
i bet they at least try

Possibly. Or whatever the experts find when they examine him could put it in a different context.

I never did criminal at the trial level, so srtategery as far as that goes isn't my thing. But I'd hate to say it's never going to happen when they haven't even examined him yet.

 

[DiveCon]

Make it harder? Probably. Destroy? Not necessarily. It'll be up to the experts, and if it's at all in question he'll have to get it past a jury.

But that jury will have a lot more information than we do now. What that information will say.....?

true
and what will and wont be allowed to be entered as evidence
the defense might just get his web post disallowed
i bet they at least try

Possibly. Or whatever the experts find when they examine him could put it in a different context.

I never did criminal at the trial level, so srtategery as far as that goes isn't my thing. But I'd hate to say it's never going to happen when they haven't even examined him yet.

it would be interesting to be on THAT jury, thats for sure

 

[whitehall]

The most ignorant assumption you can make is that all seemingly insane crimes are committed by insane people. It's not true. If it was, Bundy and Gacey and Dahmer would be resting comfortably, enjoying prescription medication and watching cable TV today.

 

[goldcatt]

true
and what will and wont be allowed to be entered as evidence
the defense might just get his web post disallowed
i bet they at least try

Possibly. Or whatever the experts find when they examine him could put it in a different context.

I never did criminal at the trial level, so srtategery as far as that goes isn't my thing. But I'd hate to say it's never going to happen when they haven't even examined him yet.

it would be interesting to be on THAT jury, thats for sure

Oh, I'd love to be a fly on the wall. No matter where they end up holding the trial, it'll be difficult to get a jury pool without some sort of an an opinion going in. Voir dire should be an interesting experience.

 

[geauxtohell]

Mental illness =/= Legal insanity

Legal insanity =/= Mental incompetence

If he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity there will be a long process to determine if he was, in fact, legally insane. That is unknown at this time.

But legal insanity is not the same as being unable to plan, or incompetent to think at all. It means lacking the capacity basically to know right from wrong. If the exhaustive examinations make it pretty clear he is, in fact, legally insane, usually the prosecution will deal. If it goes to trial, he will have to convince the jury. Less than 20% of attempts are successful.

I'd say if he does turn out to be not guilty by reason of insanity, it's a pretty reasonable assumption it's warranted.

Your posts have been really educational on this subject.

 

[AllieBaba]

He didn't say he wasn't guilty by reason of insanity. He said he didn't do it.

So?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The most ignorant assumption you can make is that all seemingly insane crimes are committed by insane people. It's not true. If it was, Bundy and Gacey and Dahmer would be resting comfortably, enjoying prescription medication and watching cable TV today.

While I agree with your post (although I do think Loughner is insane), to play devil's advocated Dahmer was killed by another inmate-not the death penalty. Had nothing to do with his trial.

 

[Nosmo King]

One would hope that any vigilante would have the self discipline and poise to act responsibly. To take down the assailant not with a fatal head shot like the movies, but so that a trial can be held. More facts are discovered in trials than coroner's inquests.

But that's asking a lot from a vigilante.

Its asking a lot of ANYONE. You are aware that LE is trained to shoot to kill, right? That's why all the targets give the most points for center mass. You're trained to not pull the trigger unless you need to kill the person. In fact, your finger is outside the trigger guard until you have to shoot to kill, and if it goes inside the guard, you'd better pull the damn trigger. No one aims for anything but the chest or head, and the head only if you are less than a foot or two away, or you're carrying a rifle and have distance.

Anyone who trains to "shoot to wound" will be the first one shot, and if anyone I ever work with has that attitude, we won't be working together very long.

You watch too much TV. In the real world, you take no chances. You don't shoot until you have to, and you ALWAYS shoot to kill. If you ever see LE draw down on you, and the finger is inside the guard, kiss your ass goodbye and prepare to meet your maker, because they aren't going to be aiming for your knees.

Center mass, my friend. There is no other target. You keep firing until you hit it, because the ones that don't hit it don't even count. Vigilante or not.

A well reasoned defense of shooting to kill. But hardly an endorsement of vigilante action.

You keep firing until you hit it, because the ones that don't hit it don't even count.

In a panicked crowd, you would have kept shooting because if you miss your target, those shots don't count? Those shots are still shots and are capable of killing or wounding innocents while the vigilante has no accountability because those shots don't count. You should rethink this.

 

[Sarah G]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

From what I've read, he plead not guilty just to get the case going. If he had plead guilty, it would all just be over. It's a strategy. He could plead for insanity, I think he's insane but I also realize that people want him dead for his crimes so I hope he isn't actually ruled to be insane.

 

[goldcatt]

Popular opinion shouldn't enter into it. Most people are educated by Hollywood on insanity and don't fully understand the insanity defense, how difficult it is to actually be found legally insane, the actual result or the reason why it upholds justice. They think it's "getting off", and it is nothing of the sort. It usually means indefinite incarceration in a government mental facility. And while some may eventually be freed many stay for life - even if life is not the sentence they would have received under a guilty verdict.

All that matters is the actual facts, which are not yet known, and how the law as it is written applies. We have courts, rights and the guarantee of due process specifically to keep law and order in a civilized and just manner, and so that we aren't all at the mercy of roaming vigilantes and lynch mobs deciding on their own and off the cuff what is and is not "justice".

 

[JBeukema]

Mental illness =/= Legal insanity

Legal insanity =/= Mental incompetence

If he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity there will be a long process to determine if he was, in fact, legally insane. That is unknown at this time.

But legal insanity is not the same as being unable to plan, or incompetent to think at all. It means lacking the capacity basically to know right from wrong. If the exhaustive examinations make it pretty clear he is, in fact, legally insane, usually the prosecution will deal. If it goes to trial, he will have to convince the jury. Less than 20% of attempts are successful.

I'd say if he does turn out to be not guilty by reason of insanity, it's a pretty reasonable assumption it's warranted.

If he's sane, he needs to be locked away forever or killed as a mass murderer

If he's insane, clearly he can never be safely let back into society, and he should be locked away forever or killed like a wild beast

 

[goldcatt]

Mental illness =/= Legal insanity

Legal insanity =/= Mental incompetence

If he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity there will be a long process to determine if he was, in fact, legally insane. That is unknown at this time.

But legal insanity is not the same as being unable to plan, or incompetent to think at all. It means lacking the capacity basically to know right from wrong. If the exhaustive examinations make it pretty clear he is, in fact, legally insane, usually the prosecution will deal. If it goes to trial, he will have to convince the jury. Less than 20% of attempts are successful.

I'd say if he does turn out to be not guilty by reason of insanity, it's a pretty reasonable assumption it's warranted.

If he's sane, he needs to be locked away forever or killed as a mass murderer

If he's insane, clearly he can never be safely let back into society, and he should be locked away forever or killed like a wild beast

One of the bolded things is what will happen I'm sure.

We don't kill off the insane anymore though. That was a 19th Century practice. Well, and earlier.

 

[AllieBaba]

Mental illness =/= Legal insanity

Legal insanity =/= Mental incompetence

If he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity there will be a long process to determine if he was, in fact, legally insane. That is unknown at this time.

But legal insanity is not the same as being unable to plan, or incompetent to think at all. It means lacking the capacity basically to know right from wrong. If the exhaustive examinations make it pretty clear he is, in fact, legally insane, usually the prosecution will deal. If it goes to trial, he will have to convince the jury. Less than 20% of attempts are successful.

I'd say if he does turn out to be not guilty by reason of insanity, it's a pretty reasonable assumption it's warranted.

If he's sane, he needs to be locked away forever or killed as a mass murderer

If he's insane, clearly he can never be safely let back into society, and he should be locked away forever or killed like a wild beast

I don't think there's much of a chance he'll be released.

My understanding of how insanity convictions work is that they are locked up in a mental institution, and if they are ever determined to be "sane" then they get to go to prison.

Either way, they're locked up. Where things get messed up is when they are transferred to facilities that allow "outings"...