11-22-2013, 10:54 PM
I know what you mean, crash. One would have to be a defective person to kill someone for reasons other than self defense or protection of others.
I'm not familiar with Australian criminal justice, but "insanity" is a hard defense to sell in US courts. Lots of us are defective, but very few (who are not diagnosed with some form of schizophrenia and are intelligent enough to be deemed competent to stand trial) don't know that it's wrong to violate or kill someone. So "insanity" doesn't apply. To be legally insane, the accused has to have not known what they were doing or not not known what they were doing was wrong.
So, then it comes down to proving that there was an abnormal condition (defect) of the mind when the crime was committed; "temporary insanity". Legally, in the US, "mental disease or defect" is defined as "any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and impairs behavior controls." That gives defense attorneys some room to play.
What I've seen attempted most often is the accused claiming that the victim caused them such mental or emotional trauma that they were unable to control themselves from striking out, even though they would never have committed such a crime without that alleged victim-induced trauma.
Lorena Bobbit claimed she couldn't help herself from cutting off her husband's penis because of his alleged abuse and cheating. She was actually acquitted. That shocked me.
The Menendez brothers claimed they couldn't help themselves from executing their parents because of their father's alleged sexual and emotional abuse. Betty Broderick claimed she couldn't help herself from killing her ex-husband and his new wife in their sleep because they treated her unfairly and shabbily. They were all convicted of murder.
Anyway, I hope Chism decides to plead guilty rather than go to trial. Nothing's been released to indicate that he didn't know right from wrong as he conducted his daily life. And, there's been nothing released to indicate that Ms. Ritzer was anything but a good devoted teacher, to him and all of her students.
There was a bit in the news today about how his father was abusive though. So, maybe the defense will try to make a case around Ms. Ritzer somehow reminding him of his father's actions and that he was uncontrollably triggered and lashing out at his father when he killed Ritzer.
Or, maybe they'll try to make the jury believe that Ms. Ritzer had abused him in some way and he couldn't control himself from lashing out at her.
Hard to believe either scenario, especially when you throw in the rape and robbery. But, the favored US criminal defense "some other guy did it" is out of the question for Chism - LE has him on tape committing portions of the crime and in possession of stolen goods. So, the defense attorneys are gonna have to get really creative if this goes to trial.
Like Miss Vickie, I'm very interested to see how this plays out.
I'm not familiar with Australian criminal justice, but "insanity" is a hard defense to sell in US courts. Lots of us are defective, but very few (who are not diagnosed with some form of schizophrenia and are intelligent enough to be deemed competent to stand trial) don't know that it's wrong to violate or kill someone. So "insanity" doesn't apply. To be legally insane, the accused has to have not known what they were doing or not not known what they were doing was wrong.
So, then it comes down to proving that there was an abnormal condition (defect) of the mind when the crime was committed; "temporary insanity". Legally, in the US, "mental disease or defect" is defined as "any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and impairs behavior controls." That gives defense attorneys some room to play.
What I've seen attempted most often is the accused claiming that the victim caused them such mental or emotional trauma that they were unable to control themselves from striking out, even though they would never have committed such a crime without that alleged victim-induced trauma.
Lorena Bobbit claimed she couldn't help herself from cutting off her husband's penis because of his alleged abuse and cheating. She was actually acquitted. That shocked me.
The Menendez brothers claimed they couldn't help themselves from executing their parents because of their father's alleged sexual and emotional abuse. Betty Broderick claimed she couldn't help herself from killing her ex-husband and his new wife in their sleep because they treated her unfairly and shabbily. They were all convicted of murder.
Anyway, I hope Chism decides to plead guilty rather than go to trial. Nothing's been released to indicate that he didn't know right from wrong as he conducted his daily life. And, there's been nothing released to indicate that Ms. Ritzer was anything but a good devoted teacher, to him and all of her students.
There was a bit in the news today about how his father was abusive though. So, maybe the defense will try to make a case around Ms. Ritzer somehow reminding him of his father's actions and that he was uncontrollably triggered and lashing out at his father when he killed Ritzer.
Or, maybe they'll try to make the jury believe that Ms. Ritzer had abused him in some way and he couldn't control himself from lashing out at her.
Hard to believe either scenario, especially when you throw in the rape and robbery. But, the favored US criminal defense "some other guy did it" is out of the question for Chism - LE has him on tape committing portions of the crime and in possession of stolen goods. So, the defense attorneys are gonna have to get really creative if this goes to trial.
Like Miss Vickie, I'm very interested to see how this plays out.