|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
nogods 
Group: Members
Posts: 5426
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Nov. 13 2012, 9:06 pm |
|
   |
A woman arrested for stabbing her husband in the stomach explained to South Carolina cops that, “Jesus and Mary told me to kill him because he is Satan’s spawn!”
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/woman-stabs-satans-spawn-683412
In many states, a jury will be instructed that if they believe that the defendant really believed that he or she was being directed by a supreme being to commit an act, then the jury can find the defendant not guilty (its called the Moses defense).
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2012, 9:22 pm |
|
 |
Why would that be allowed as a defense? Isn't that solid evidence they are psychotic? Are they found not guilty due to insanity and committed for treatment?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
CajunHiker
Carnival Time!
Group: Members
Posts: 22563
Joined: Jun. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2012, 10:40 pm |
|
|
Don't lots of wives think their husbands are Satan's spawn? Yet most don't actually go through with stabbing them because of it. 
--------------
"Mardi Gras is the love of life. It is the harmonic convergence of our food, our music, our creativity, our eccentricity, our neighborhoods, and our joy of living. All at once." - Chris Rose
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Lamebeaver
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Group: Members
Posts: 16232
Joined: Aug. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2012, 11:06 pm |
|
|
Absolutely I would accept it.......not guilty by reason of insanity.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
bill g
Group: Members
Posts: 343
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2012, 11:17 pm |
|
|
In many states, a jury will be instructed that if they believe that the defendant really believed that he or she was being directed by a supreme being to commit an act, then the jury can find the defendant not guilty (its called the Moses defense).[/quote]
Bull feathers!!!!!!!
Even Google never heard of this.
--------------
you don't know what you got till it's gone
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
kyle2193
Group: Members
Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2008
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2012, 11:22 pm |
|
|
You put 12 very religious jurors in a very religious part of the country with a religious judge and that still wouldn't fly. Even their convictions only go so far.
--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8760
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 14 2012, 9:38 am |
|
|
I prefer the time-travel defense... Joe kills Bob after a time traveller proves that Bob will become the next Hitler.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Marmotstew
Group: Members
Posts: 8703
Joined: May 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 14 2012, 9:56 am |
|
|
I'm partial to the Chewbacca Defense.
--------------
I'd rather be Facebooking watching videos of cats licking themselves
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
nogods
Group: Members
Posts: 5426
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 14 2012, 10:47 am |
|
|
(bill g @ Nov. 13 2012, 11:17 pm)
QUOTE
Bull feathers!!!!!!!
Even Google never heard of this.
There's a reason internet law schools don't have graduates nominated to the bench.
Justice Cardozo wrote the opinion in People v. Schmidt, 216 NY 324 (1915), including this example:
In Guiteau's Case (10 Fed. Rep. 161) these words were quoted approvingly, and supplemented by other illustrations. The court instanced the case of a man known to be an affectionate father, who "insists that the Almighty has appeared to him, and commanded him to sacrifice his child." Of these and like cases, the court said (p. 182): "If a man insanely believes that he has a command from the Almighty to kill, it is difficult to understand how such a man can know that it is wrong for him to do it."
73 years latter NY's highest court returned to the question, stating in People v. Kohl, 72 NY2d 191 (1988):
This very point was underscored by our unanimous court in People v Schmidt (216 N.Y. 324, 339, supra). Speaking through then Judge Cardozo, we disapproved the trial judge's instruction that, regardless of the defendant's delusions, he could still be found mentally competent if he knew what he was doing and knew that his conduct was prohibited by law (id., at 330). As Cardozo explained in an illustration particularly apropros to the present case: "A mother kills her infant child to whom she has been devotedly attached. She knows the nature and quality of the act; she knows that the law condemns it; but she is inspired by an insane delusion that God has appeared to her and ordained the sacrifice. It seems a mockery to say that, within the meaning of the statute, she knows that the act is wrong" (id., at 339; see also, People v Nino, 149 N.Y. 317, 323-324; Willis v People, 32 N.Y. 715, 718, supra). To hold that such a person was "responsible for the crime", our court concluded, would be "abhorrent" (id., at 339).
and Virginia, on the M'Naghten Rule
In Price, the Supreme Court of Virginia explained
the application of both facets of the test:
"The first portion of M'Naghten relates to an
accused who is psychotic to an extreme
degree. It assumes an accused who, because
of mental disease, did not know the nature
and quality of his act; he simply did not
know what he was doing. For example, in
crushing the skull of a human being with an
iron bar, he believed that he was smashing a
glass jar. The latter portion of M'Naghten
relates to an accused who knew the nature and
quality of his act. He knew what he was
doing; he knew that he was crushing the skull
of a human being with an iron bar. However,
because of mental disease, he did not know
that what he was doing was wrong. He
believed, for example, that he was carrying
out a command from God."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Bateauxdriver
Group: Members
Posts: 1741
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 14 2012, 1:11 pm |
|
|
I'd vote for the death penalty for anyone who used such a BS excuse. I've never bought into the insanity plea. If you kill outside of self defense in my opinion you are always in a state of insanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
