Jared Loughner gets life in prison

**Cam63** · 08-07-2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Lunar Archivist

Oh, make no mistake, there're some people I think would best serve the world by being removed from it permanently. They'll get theirs one day without your having to break the law to speed things along.

Aye to that, Lune.

**Lester C.** · 08-07-2012, 02:45 PM

Not guilty by reason of insanity is a valid legal defense. His lawyer should be barred for not using it, because everyone agrees he was legally insane at the time of the shooting and for a good while after that. I wouldn't be suprised if the judge rejects his plea based on his compentency.

**EmarAndZeb** · 08-07-2012, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Lester C.

Not guilty by reason of insanity is a valid legal defense. His lawyer should be barred for not using it, because everyone agrees he was legally insane at the time of the shooting and for a good while after that. I wouldn't be suprised if the judge rejects his plea based on his compentency.

I think you mean "disbarred" </pedantry>, but I get what you're saying. Thing is, pleading insanity almost never goes over with juries, especially with a crime of this nature/magnitude, so in some sense it doesn't shock me the lawyer would opt not to use it. It doesn't leave someone like Loughner with a lot of defense options, though, 'cause... you know, it's not like he didn't physically commit the crimes.

**Infra-Man** · 08-07-2012, 03:19 PM

Insanity defense is also difficult in that you need to prove that the defendant does not understand the magnitude of what he or she has done and is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong. Doesn't seem like the case with Loughner, and there may be state-specific restrictions or requirements for use of the insanity defense in Arizona that Loughner did not meet.

Maybe the lawyer could have looked into fitness to stand trial as part of the defense strategy, though it's hard to say. It would end with him either in prison or in a mental institution for the rest of his life.

**Lester C.** · 08-07-2012, 03:24 PM

I hope his lawyers explained that just because the feds won't kill him, doesn't mean that the state won't.

**bert** · 08-07-2012, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Personamanx

You do it.

sure, make me an officer of the court, have the court sentence him to death, and I'll be glad to carry out the sentence, without batting an eye.

he deserves death, and he should get it.

**KalenO** · 08-07-2012, 04:15 PM

From the article linked there, it seems pretty clear the defense did try to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and after review the judge declared him competent to stand trial, which is in his purview.

What most people don't realize about the insanity defense however is that our judicial system has a very specific definition of what constitutes insanity. Simply having some kind of mental illness isn't enough. Our courts define it as being unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. There are many ways in which a person can be mentally ill and still be cognizant of what's right and what's wrong. So by declaring him mentally competent, the judge here wasn't saying that there's nothing wrong with this guy. He was saying he believed, and the evidence supported, that this man knew killing these people in cold blood was wrong. That's all the matters in the eyes of the court.

**Tyr** · 08-07-2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by ShaunN

Here is a NYT story about Loughner's sentence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

The article gives the impression that Loughner is going to prison. If this is correct, I don't understand. Isn't there a mental hospital where he can be incarcerated and treated?

If, in fact, Loughner is going to prison, then I am even more appalled with the US justice system. Why in God's name would you send a man who is clearly mentally ill to a prison?

The comments in the NYT comments section are also very disturbing. The level of bloodthirstiness and lust for even more violence is disgusting and discouraging. Don't people understand what it means to be mentally ill?

As I understand it the mental insanity defense is actually harder to prove in court then most people might think. Many that end up going to prison aren't really of sound mind to begin with.

**Ray G.** · 08-07-2012, 05:23 PM

He has not been proven to be mentally ill.

Acts of madness don't prove madness.

He can fucking rot.

**AthenAltena** · 08-07-2012, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Lester C.

Not guilty by reason of insanity is a valid legal defense. His lawyer should be barred for not using it, because everyone agrees he was legally insane at the time of the shooting and for a good while after that. I wouldn't be suprised if the judge rejects his plea based on his compentency.

Well, pleading guilty by reason of insanity is really complicated, and despite how some people paint it is not by any stretch of the imagination getting off easy (which is why it was scaled back after the guy who tried to kill Reagan got it, since some people saw that as going too easy on him). And it's also really hard to actually get the judge to accept it, as shown here since it was rejected. I actually wrote a paper at one point about how it should actually be implemented more often, but I don't know enough about the case to say if he was a valid candidate or not for it.