- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why the insanity plea is fundamentally BS and should not be be a thing
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:31 pm
A trial should be about objective facts and evidence.
Historically when people plead not guilty they are essentially contending they did not do the thing or that you cannot prove they did the thing. The prosecution is attempting to prove they actually did the thing. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Whether or not the person did the thing is a completely rational, objective question that can be proven with enough evidence.
If you say you didn't rob that gas station but I have 3 different video tapes showing you did, and 4 eye witnesses, and your fingerprints at the scene, and I found the bag of cash you stole in your car, I have objectively proven you did it and thus you can be found guilty.
The insanity plea completely disregards all objectivity and now you are attempting to have a trial about completely made up subjective bullshite.
What was in your mind while you did it? We gotta listen to random cherry picked fake "experts" with phony degrees in bullshite give completely retarded opinions about what may or may not have been inside your head while you did it?
None of that is real. It's all just opinion and feeling. You may as well try to have a trial about which brand and flavor of ice cream is best, the entire thing is a farce.
Trials should not be about "feels" they should be about evidence. You do the crime, you do the punishment, I don't care if you're sub 80 IQ retarded or crazy or what.
Historically when people plead not guilty they are essentially contending they did not do the thing or that you cannot prove they did the thing. The prosecution is attempting to prove they actually did the thing. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Whether or not the person did the thing is a completely rational, objective question that can be proven with enough evidence.
If you say you didn't rob that gas station but I have 3 different video tapes showing you did, and 4 eye witnesses, and your fingerprints at the scene, and I found the bag of cash you stole in your car, I have objectively proven you did it and thus you can be found guilty.
The insanity plea completely disregards all objectivity and now you are attempting to have a trial about completely made up subjective bullshite.
What was in your mind while you did it? We gotta listen to random cherry picked fake "experts" with phony degrees in bullshite give completely retarded opinions about what may or may not have been inside your head while you did it?
None of that is real. It's all just opinion and feeling. You may as well try to have a trial about which brand and flavor of ice cream is best, the entire thing is a farce.
Trials should not be about "feels" they should be about evidence. You do the crime, you do the punishment, I don't care if you're sub 80 IQ retarded or crazy or what.
16
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:35 pm to StansberryRules
Well this post proves you are insane bro
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:35 pm to StansberryRules
Hopefully our descendants will look at this point in history as the dark ages of stupidity.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:38 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
Trials should not be about "feels" they should be about evidence. You do the crime, you do the punishment,
So had he lived, Brian Wells should have been imprisoned for decades?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:39 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
objective
Well, we could repeal the 19th amendment.
In the spirit of the "if you don't own a home, you shouldn't vote on property taxes" thread, if you don't pay taxes (as a SAHM, for instance) you shouldn't be allowed to serve on juries.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:40 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
The insanity plea completely disregards all objectivity and now you are attempting to have a trial about completely made up subjective bullshite.
quote:
What was in your mind while you did it? We gotta listen to random cherry picked fake "experts" with phony degrees in bullshite give completely retarded opinions about what may or may not have been inside your head while you did it?
None of that is real. It's all just opinion and feeling. You may as well try to have a trial about which brand and flavor of ice cream is best, the entire thing is a farce.
The sooner you understand that objective truth has left the building for the most part aka we are living in a simulation, the less stressed you would be. I think. Haha.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:43 pm to StansberryRules
Google AI:
quote:
"Guilty except insane" (GEI) is a legal verdict, primarily used in some U.S. states like Arizona, where a defendant is found to have committed the crime but was legally insane at the time of the act. This means that due to a severe mental disease or defect, the person could not understand the wrongfulness of their actions. While not resulting in innocence, a GEI verdict leads to commitment to a mental health facility for treatment rather than standard incarceration.
Key Aspects of a "Guilty Except Insane" Verdict:
Admission of Guilt: The defendant does not deny the commission of the act.
Mental State at the Time of the Crime: The core of the defense is that a severe mental disease or defect prevented the defendant from knowing the act was wrong or understanding its nature.
Legal Standard: "Insanity" in a legal context is not a medical term but a legal standard that varies by jurisdiction.
Consequences: The defendant is not acquitted of the crime but is committed to a mental health institution for treatment. The duration of commitment is often related to the sentence they would have received.
Burden of Proof: In many cases, the defendant carries the burden of proving their insanity.
Distinction from "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" (NGRI): A GEI verdict holds the defendant accountable for the act, albeit with diminished capacity, while an NGRI verdict seeks to have them found fully not responsible for the act.
Jurisdictional Differences: Not all states offer the GEI verdict; other options like "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) or the traditional NGRI defense are used elsewhere.
How it Differs from Other Insanity Defenses:
"Guilty but Mentally Ill" (GBMI):
.
This verdict acknowledges mental illness but still allows for incarceration while providing for psychiatric treatment within the prison system.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:00 pm to StansberryRules
The accused is admitting to the crime - they admit guilt.
The question is state of mind at the time of the act.
Typically, NGRI results in a longer incarceration than a run of the day murder. Not many judges are willing to risk their careers by freeing someone who is NGRI
The question is state of mind at the time of the act.
Typically, NGRI results in a longer incarceration than a run of the day murder. Not many judges are willing to risk their careers by freeing someone who is NGRI
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:25 pm to wfallstiger
I am in favor of IBSG alternative.
Insane But Still Guilty
Insane But Still Guilty
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:28 pm to MikeD
Even in her wheelchair. Beaten about the head for what she did to those babies.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:31 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
A trial should be about objective facts and evidence. Historically when people plead not guilty they are essentially contending they did not do the thing or that you cannot prove they did the thing. The prosecution is attempting to prove they actually did the thing. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Whether or not the person did the thing is a completely rational, objective question that can be proven with enough evidence. If you say you didn't rob that gas station but I have 3 different video tapes showing you did, and 4 eye witnesses, and your fingerprints at the scene, and I found the bag of cash you stole in your car, I have objectively proven you did it and thus you can be found guilty. The insanity plea completely disregards all objectivity and now you are attempting to have a trial about completely made up subjective bullshite. What was in your mind while you did it? We gotta listen to random cherry picked fake "experts" with phony degrees in bullshite give completely retarded opinions about what may or may not have been inside your head while you did it? None of that is real. It's all just opinion and feeling. You may as well try to have a trial about which brand and flavor of ice cream is best, the entire thing is a farce. Trials should not be about "feels" they should be about evidence. You do the crime, you do the punishment, I don't care if you're sub 80 IQ retarded or crazy or what.
Man, this was one of the most intelligent things I’ve ever read on here. I’m also high, so.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:34 pm to StansberryRules
LINK
Here is a video I came across recently that explains this exact thing. Basically, as soon as women achieve a majority in anything, the feels will always outweigh the truth.
Here is a video I came across recently that explains this exact thing. Basically, as soon as women achieve a majority in anything, the feels will always outweigh the truth.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:42 pm to StansberryRules
On top of that, being crazy makes it worse, not better.
If you are crazy and don’t know right from wrong, you should be separated from society forever or killed.
If you are crazy and don’t know right from wrong, you should be separated from society forever or killed.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 11:04 pm to StansberryRules
Posted on 9/3/26 at 11:13 pm to forkedintheroad
quote:
Hopefully our descendants will look at this point in history as the dark ages of stupidity
NGRI is not some new concept. It's been around for centuries.
And women murdering their kids isn't new either. We have cases of it going back centuries too. There was a woman in the 1950s who killed 3 of her kids. She was found NGRI and released back to her husband. They had 3 more kids and she killed them too. That time she was found NGRI except put in an institution. She escaped from the institution and and drowned herself in a river.
I am a full believer that some people are insane. I am just not convinced Clancy meets the criteria. She has no history of psychosis which is really what you need for an insanity defense.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 11:50 pm to AUstar
quote:
I am a full believer that some people are insane.
My point is that this should be completely irrelevant.
I don't care if you murdered someone because you just love murder or if you believe Santa Claus told you to.
I'm perfectly fine with executing both of these individuals.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 12:04 am to StansberryRules
Posted on 9/4/26 at 2:27 am to StansberryRules
If you are so opposed to “I did it, but…” defenses, wait until you hear about Manslaughter and self defense claims 
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:11 am to StansberryRules
With all due respect to the OT attorneys: lawyers have fricked this country up, bigly
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:14 am to StansberryRules
They should do the same amount of time just in an asylum if they are so insane they murdered someone
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News