13 year old cheerleader Tristyn Bailey was found stabbed to death on Sunday May 9, 2021 in a remote wooded area.
On Monday May 10th 2021, 14 year old Aiden Fucci was arrested and charged with second degree Murder. Police conducted a search of his residents and discovered bloody clothes and was only .3 miles away from the crime scene. Police have still not released a motive in the killing however, social media is playing a big part in their investigation. Investigators learned that a Snapchat from an account named Aiden Fucci post a photo of him in the back of a police car with the caption "has anyone seen Tristyn lately". This snapchat was confirmed to from Aidens account.
I know that there isn't anything confirmed on a motive or too much info on the case but could this be a possibility?
Got to give fresh and fit for bringing this to light in such glaring proof. It is literally a mental gymnastics construct that is imploring all of us to have to throw out reality or facts and agree to someone’s sense of delusion and rationalization of their behavior or they will take their ball and go home. This has Princess culture all over it, how has this gone unchecked to this level? “I feel like” is not a healthy grasp on reality and merely refusing to admit it bc it’s temporarily more beneficial to play ignorant.
I was wondering what people think about the connection between moral capacity and cognitive capacity. The law distinguishes the two as separate considerations for the purposes of the insanity defense. My intuition tells me these two things are not separate but rather (excuse the cliche) they are two sides of the same coin. I am having trouble sorting my thoughts on this and was wondering if anyone else has thoughts.
In Kahler v. Kansas the dissent is in agreement with this concept and paints a simple picture of the difference between the two prongs of the current commonly accepted insanity defense:
"Consider two similar prosecutions for murder. In Prosecution One, the accused person has shot and killed another person. The evidence at trial proves that, as a result of severe mental illness, he thought the victim was a dog. Prosecution Two is similar but for one thing: The evidence at trial proves that, as a result of severe mental illness, the defendant thought that a dog ordered him to kill the victim. "
Prosecution one references the cognitive incapacity and Prosecution two references the moral.
Is there really a difference? Is one more fundamental than the other?
Another quote from the dissent in this case: "To be guilty of a crime, the accused must have something more than bare ability to form intentions and carry them out-"
is this true?
(for a full case text: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/589/18-6135/)
Think about it. Joker is clearly rational enough to make calculated and complex plans and decisions and can understand how many events will play out, has a deep understanding of the human mind and psyche and can predict what actions others will take as a result of certain events, has full competency and soundness of mind to run and operate a criminal organization, and has the clarity and knowledge of the law to know that his actions are illegal and hurt innocent people, as evidenced by the sheer amount of card-carrying villain dialogues he engages in.
So why doesn't he get Capital Punishment? He is clearly fit to stand trial. He may fit the CLINICAL definition of insanity, but is clearly self aware enough to know that he's in the wrong, and doesn't fit the legal definition of insanity which requires that the defendant to be extremely lacking in self-awareness and rational thought regarding the moral and legal implications of their actions, which the Joker DOES NOT fit into.
Hi All,
What does a successful insanity defense entail for sentence reduction? Could someone give an example of a case where the insanity defense was successful, and how much it reduced the sentence?
I'm assuming nobody ever got off scot-free for a murder indictment using the insanity defense, or really any other crime (felony or not), as I understand that arguing it implies that the crime was actually carried out, regardless of whether the mental capacity was there.
Fill in any procedural gaps that I might be missing when it comes to arguing the insanity defense. Thanks in advance!
We'll start with an analogy. Let's say there are 2 murderers, A and B. A killed a man out of cold blood and B did the same. Then, both A and B are caught by the police force with evidence that proves that they did it. A uses an insanity defense, while B just pleads guilty. The judge rules A as not guilty and B as guilty even though they both did a heinous crime. Why, then, is A not punished at all while B is punished very heavily? I would say that we should either give both A and B help or punish both of them. Please help and explain!
https://www.jiujitsutimes.com/black-belt-marcel-goncalves-to-rely-on-defense-of-insanity-in-felony-sexual-assault-case/?fbclid=IwAR2EZs9pCvNrlEyY5JfUeyj59JhK0y4VyfC4Ke6Jxm_C0rbS3mRHATcUWxU
I know some people that still have some ties to this guy in one way or another. I don't and won't judge, but I beg any of you that do to please sever ties with him. Not only did he take advantage of a student/minor, he is now using a tactic to get away with what he can.
I just don’t get why we tolerate this or why can’t the shrinks compromise by doing the treatment in prison , prison time after treatment , closing mental hospitals and putting the forensic patients in prisons , cut off of treatment then send to prison, only allow the defense one time or abolish it but make all courts disclose jury nullification
It's basically a collection of the best written pieces Woody published throughout his career. You know, for something written by a nebbish Jew more than a half century ago, the fucking thing still holds up. It's actually hilarious. Guy's a genius (as if anyone needed more evidence.
Anyway, yeah, really worth looking into if you're a fan.
"The Insanity Defense: The Complete Prose"
According to the hard determinists I had conversations with, advancements in neuroscience and related fields have shown that every action results from some combination of biological predispositions, neurological circumstances, and environmental influences, which makes every action unwilled and not immoral/unethical, therefore absolved of all attributions of credit, blame, and responsibility.
When there is an absence of free will, or a limited free will, they say one is not a moral agent, is not blameworthy and can not be held responsible, and their action can not be wrong/immoral/unethical either, therefore they should not be punished.
This view can be seen in other places, where insanity, necessity and duress are considered excuses and/or justifications for immoral/unethical actions.
They say that if someone is insane (mentally ill such as severely schizophrenic for instance), their free will is very limited. They are mentally impaired, are incapable of understanding what they do, and lack moral agency, therefore whatever they do can not be immoral/unethical. Even if their actions are unethical/immoral, they can not be blamed and punished (e.g. sent to prison) for committing immoral/unethical actions.
If someone is in a situation they are faced with the risk to injury, etc, such as under duress, then they say their free will is limited due to coercion, so they are actually a victim as well, and either their actions can not be immoral/unethical or if their actions are unethical/immoral they should not be blamed and sent to prison for said actions.
There are many examples for this view, they say if someone is starving, and has no food, it's not immoral/unethical for them to steal, as food is necessary for them to survive.
Or if someone is faced with a situation where they either have to >!rape!< someone else or be shot, it is not immoral/unethical for them to >!rape!< because it wouldn't be >!rape!< anymore. The one threatening them is the >!rapist!<, not the one >!"raping"!< because they are also a victim of >!rape!< in this situation for being threatened, making the act not rape because we have two victims here.
I have another example here: https://imgur.com/sxXqwqF
The commenter claims >!rape is not always immoral, it can be moral, or at least not immoral, e.g. when under duress, or it's for self-defense, a situation where someone has to rape or get shot, or one has to rape someo
... keep reading on reddit ➡My very limited understanding is that if you can convince them you’re insane and can’t tell right from wrong you will be treated better (in terms of punishment) than you would otherwise in committing a crime. But how is that different than just not knowing what you were doing was illegal?
I have autism and I'm covering his trial, and I'm trying to explain to people what it's like to have autism and how it could affect how he thinks and sees the world.
This case has encouraged a lot of misconceptions about people with autism that I'm trying to undo.
I'm new to autism advocacy, and I would be interested to hear what you guys think about this case and if you have any suggestions about how to explain things like theory of mind, empathy, and social challenges that people with autism face.
Hi all,
Could anyone explain the insanity defenses (M’Naughten, irresistible impulse, Durham, and substantial capacity) to me by example? I can memorize the terms of the rules, but I need to ground the rules in context to really get them. Thanks!
