I was flipping through the channels, when closing arguments in a trial caught my eye. While i did not follow this trial (and usually do not follow trials).... i stopped to watch some of the Defense's closing arguments. It's in re: the Hainstock trial. He brought a gun to school and murdered his principal.
http://www.channel3000.com/news/13798154/detail.html
The defense was basically arguing (by suggestion, not in so many words) that Hainstock was not entirely responsible for his actions, as he was not on his ADHD medicine during the time of the shooting; and that his testimony was the only credible testimony who's story 'never changed' as opposed to the other witnesses that testified.
I don't know about you, but i don't buy it. Mainly, because I am Adhd... and i've never brought a gun to school or work; Adhd doesn't make you kill people. While yes there is impulsivity present, adhd doesn't impare your sense of morals. There is a MAJOR difference between .....
2007-11-27 06:48:05 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
impulsivity and not stoping to think before you act; AND spontaneously premeditating a homicide.
I think he had every intention of killing his principle when he went into school with the gun. His ADHD is not a vaild excuse for murder. People with ADHD do MOST CERTAINLY know the difference between right and wrong, either with, or without medication!!!
Can you believe the defense even went there? That was the worst closing argument i ever heard?!!!
2007-11-27 06:50:27 · update #1
I'm sorry but it just blew me away! I just turned the channel and noticed it. What caught my eye was the statement about ADHD.
Adhd may impair good judgment sometimes due to the impulsivity factor, but that's more or less, running into traffic, in no way relevant to the act of murder. Besides that he fired multiple shots. That seems pretty intentional to me!
I just couldnt believe the Defense even argued that as a possibility! It just blew me away. WTF?
2007-11-27 06:56:43 · update #2
OKAY ----> I just turned it back on! He was found guilty. Thank GOD. there is no excuse for murder. None at all.
2007-11-27 06:59:00 · update #3
Jurydoc: As i said, i did not follow the trial; all i heard on it was the closing arguments. So i am certain there is plenty of testimony i did not hear. And while, Yes i agree that the inability to contemplate the full outcome of actions IS possibly relevant to the 'accidental' part, bringing the gun to school shows intent. The kid brought a gun to school -What did he think was going to happen? The Defense also argued that he was not a 'recluse like the Columbine kids' but more or less a very troubled kid who did something stupid. Obviously. BUT, the kid's testimony changed several times. And lack of impulse control or not, it still doesn't irradicate the action. ONE shot fired is accidental, not FIVE.
2007-11-27 07:06:32 · update #4
No1: Yes i know. ADHD is not a mental disorder. It is not the same thing. And that's probably what made me so appalled. People with ADHD know the difference between right and wrong. Lack of impulse control is not an excuse to break the Law. While there is present the lack of 'thinking through' things, that is very different than commiting a murder. Does that mean, that i could just go out and shoot up the block and say, 'Oh drat, i'm adhd, i didn't know that killing people was wrong. Sorry, i didnt think before i acted.' By no means! I'm actually offended that the Defense even went there as per argument. *sighs in disgust*
2007-11-27 07:14:03 · update #5
The argument goes to the issue of premeditation. As you say, people with ADHD may be marked with impulsivity and the lack of ability to contemplate the outcomes of their actions. According to the article you cite, the defendant did not go with the intention to kill, rather his testimony was that the shooting was an accident. This may seem a trivial distinction, but it is critical to what charge he may be found guilty of and to the length of punishment he may receive. I did not hear the closing argument, but I doubt the defense was saying he did not bear ANY responsibility due to the ADHD, only that the ability to form the requisite mental state to show premeditation was impaired.
2007-11-27 06:58:36 · answer #1 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My brother has ADHD and he's never done anything like this. It's insane. It's an excuse. But I'm sure that must have been all the attorney had to go with. He has to defend this guy afterall.
It's one reason I opted not to go into law. I couldn't defend someone that I either knew was guilty or was pretty sure was. It would be very difficult. How would I feel if he walked away because I did a good job?
2007-11-27 15:00:05 · answer #2 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unbelievable. They are trying to classify ADHD as mental disease or defect. If they manage to establish that in this trial, our future is so bleak!
2007-11-27 14:54:19 · answer #3 · answered by Smooch The Pooch 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the principal should have paid more attention.
2007-11-27 20:54:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're right,it is ridiculous!
2007-11-27 17:01:14 · answer #5 · answered by Babygirl S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋