Insanity defense Puns

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!

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"

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!