In 1995, the state of
Kansas passed a law (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3220) which revoked the traditional
insanity defense.
Defendants could no longer argue that, because of their mental illness, they were incapable of deciding right from wrong.
Instead, defendants suffering from mental illness were only permitted to argue that their mental illness prevented them from forming the
specific intent (or
mens rea) needed to commit the crime.
Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer described the distinction between the two systems in his dissent in
Delling v. Idaho, a case covering the same topic that the Supreme Court declined to hear in 2012.
Well, I agree with that.
If a person doesn't know right from wrong, then if they stick their hand on a stove burner on high, when they're four years old.
Then, do it again when they're 54 months old, they might be mental.
Sticking a cat in the dryer multiple times is a good indicator.
So, I don't buy the defense.
Unless a recent trauma took place, like war.
My neighbor's son went to Afghanistan, good kid, good grades, went to college and everything.
A 2nd Lt., he must have seen some shit, because when he came back, he wasn't right in the head,
That's where he shot himself, in front of his wife, family, neighbors and cops, in the middle of the road.
Still don't know if he was insane in the purest sense.
However, I don't think he thought of his wife or mother as a witch.......................that I know of.
www.breitbart.com
