Although philosophically and legally interesting, insanity defenses are practically unimportant. They are invoked in less than one tenth of one percent of criminal trials, and 95 percent of criminal indictments lead to guilty please rather than trials, so basically, it doesn't matter in raelw orld terms.
jks
>
>Ian Murray wrote:
> > [clip]
> > D Carrol
> > ===========
> >
> > "In recent years several neurological conditions have been introduced
> > into criminal trials as part ofthe insanity defense
>
>The criminal justice system in this & most nations is itself something
>of a crime, and the "insanity plea" is part of the patchwork of
>amendments to make the unworkable a little less unworkable. In a
>reasonaly rational criminal justice system psychiatry/neurology etc.
>would probably not be either necessary or desirable.
>
>But whatever the virtues or vices of psychiatric testimony in criminal
>cases, note that it does focus on the unique person at trial, not on
>some such pointless category as "terrorists" or "masterminds" in the
>abstract. It may or may not be sensible to bring neurology and/or
>psychology to bear on the Hinckley case; it is clearly absurd to bring
>such considerations to bear in considering the actions of a U.S.
>Secretary of State.
>
>Carrol
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp