Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
While the guy may be imbalanced, he's not insane by the criminal definition. That's just lawyer posturing.
The mental ability to steal the loader for the purpose of ramming the temple vitiates the claim of insanity because it demonstrates intent and volition, as well as suggesting that the defendant appreciates illegality/natural consequence/etc. of his actions. In other words, he appreciated it was wrong to damage the building and he knew he would damage it, but he's justifying it on rather unusual grounds.
Put differently, if you are legally insane, it means not only can you not distinguish right from wrong, you probably don't even appreciate the consequences of your actions. For example, if FTL enters a restaurant where Jay is eating and screams out "I hate steamed squash because it is trying to elect Bush!" and takes a fork to Jay, honestly believing him to be such a bowl of steamed squash, then he would be well on his way to establishing the insanity defense.
As a practical matter, when there is a defendant with a significant mental dysfunction and it's not a serious crime (murder, for example, as opposed to the mayhem in the present case), the insanity defense often leads to a plea bargain, particularly if the defendant has insurance that can be held liable to pay part or all of the property damage.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. (Winston Churchill)