English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

8 answers

I think it depends on the judge and jury.

Obviously, anyone who kills someone is not completely sane.
Someone who kills 2 people is even less sane.
Someone who kills 3 people is even less sane.

Are these people more or less sane than someone who has never hurt anyone but is institutionalized for insanity?

What does that tell you about a politician who sends people to war to kill tens of thousands of people?

2007-01-14 03:24:52 · answer #1 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 1 0

I would say it is highly unlikely though technically "possible."
The McNaughten rule addresses this defense. Applied to the insanity defense this grew out of an 1843 English murder case: "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."
Even on a single case of murder it is difficult to show that someone did not have an understanding that what they were doing was wrong, with multiple and distinct incidents it becomes almost impossible.

Also: McNaughtan, McNaughten, M'Naghten test

2007-01-14 11:58:22 · answer #2 · answered by G-Man 3 · 0 0

Sometimes, but it depends on the case, on the jury, on the judge, and on the evidence. Usually if the jury votes for the insanity ruling, the defendant is sentenced to life in a mental institution. Also, a new verdict is emerging: "guilty but insane" - so that the killer can't weasel out of punishment. The legal definition of insane varies state by state, so its tough to predict.

2007-01-14 11:27:41 · answer #3 · answered by Paul H 6 · 0 1

Typically, no.

The defendant can argue that he is not mentally competent to stand trial and be consigned to a secure psychiatric facility until deemed to be fit, but successful use of the insanity defense ordinarily assumes that the dementia was temporary - and thus inapplicable to serial activity.

2007-01-14 11:25:57 · answer #4 · answered by Fletch 2 · 0 1

Good Question.
I don't know of any being successful at it.
But...... the Democrats are in power now.
They do not believe in punishment. They want criminals just to take "Sensitivity Classes".

Democrats believe that killers are "victims", too.
That we need to try to understand their "inner feelings".
And that a big ole "Democrat Group Hug" would take care of a lot of criminal problems.

2007-01-14 11:25:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes. Find a liberal judge. They deny the notion of good and evil and think anyone who commits a heinous crime (especially a serial murderer) must be insane.

2007-01-14 11:24:58 · answer #6 · answered by WJ 7 · 1 1

Sadly, some do. You are not guilty until it proved.

2007-01-14 11:29:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well all serial killers are mentaly unstable...
its just what type and wut kind of lawyer they have....but most serial killers dont get off the hook for any excuse

2007-01-14 11:25:20 · answer #8 · answered by ifunky_monkey13 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers