Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  U.S. Supreme Court lets states bar insanity defense

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


next newest topic | next oldest topic
U.S. Supreme Court lets states bar insanity defense by blackrams
Started on: 03-23-2020 01:26 PM
Replies: 25 (291 views)
Last post by: Rickady88GT on 03-24-2020 11:01 PM
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28201
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 221
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 01:26 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
U.S. Supreme Court lets states bar insanity defense

https://www.aol.com/article...ty-defense/23959154/

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the rights of criminal defendants, declaring that states can bar them from using the so-called insanity defense in a ruling involving a Kansas man sentenced to death for killing four members of his family.
The justices ruled 6-3 that a 1995 Kansas law eliminating the insanity defense - which bars holding criminally responsible mentally impaired defendants who do not know right from wrong - did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The justices affirmed a 2018 decision by the Kansas Supreme Court upholding the conviction of the man at the center of the case, James Kraig Kahler.
Under the Kansas law, defendants cannot argue they were insane and unable to make a moral judgment as an excuse to criminal liability. But the law allowed defendants to argue that, due to mental defect, they did not intend to commit the crime.

Follow the link for the rest of the story.....


I happen to agree with Kansas.

Rams
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
williegoat
Member
Posts: 12711
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 89
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 01:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageClick Here to Email williegoatSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Well good. To do otherwise would be INSANE.

Honestly, "correctional institutions" do not correct anyone, but what they can do is protect the public from those who might do us harm.
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 32757
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 285
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 02:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwClick Here to Email cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
I happen to agree with Kansas.


I am not sure I can agree.

My wife has worked at the State (Texas) hospital for over twenty years. They deal with the mentally insane, both happenstance and forensically. Forensically being criminal cases.
The mission of the State hospital is to make those that need it sane again, or at least able to interact in public (drug assisted mostly).

Criminally, some are too insane to be tried. The treatment is to enable them to stand trial. Some are ruled innocent (?) due to insanity. The treatment is to enable them to again be able to interact, live, in public. Most will not make it and in effect imprisoned. It's not like they get to walk free.

We also, and have for years, take care of a mentally challenged individual, as family.

The mind is a mysterious thing.
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 32757
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 285
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 02:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwClick Here to Email cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

cliffw

32757 posts
Member since Jun 2003
I would also have to say, that to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, is no easy deal. Defendants are examined by a team of experts and findings are presented to the court and argued by the defense and prosecution for the court's determination.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 8969
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 192
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 05:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Interesting
There is no cure for mental illness and sadly enough there are plenty of people out there that do not know or understand laws. But I don't think knowing the difference or not knowing the difference should be argued in court. Plenty of people do not know all of the laws that we have to follow, that is why ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
So, for example, should a mentally ill person be let go if they raped a child just because they did not know right from wrong? Clearly not, so the SCOTUS made the correct decision by closing a loop hole that was used many times over the years.
IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 64994
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 07:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

Interesting
There is no cure for mental illness

1. Define'mental illness' in the context applicable to the thread topic please.
2. No cure? No, but there are plenty of treatments that very often do work or at least control the affliction.
3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There's a not-very-fine line between not bothering to inform one's self of the law, and not being able to do so.
Our constitution mandates that justice be applied equally to all.....
Scenario.
1. You're driving down the road at 70mph, the speed limit but unbeknownst to you, 20 minutes beforehand someone has had a blowout, swerved offf the road and knocked down a 55 mph speedlimit sign. 20 miles farther down the road, police pull you over, write you a ticket for drivng 15 miles over the posted speed limit. You protest that you never saw a sign and the policeman says "Tell it to the judge". You are ignorant of the law, thru no fault of your own. The judge hears your story, doesn't believe you because the 55mph sign is now up and you have to pay the fine because you were 'ignorant of the law.'

2. A person is born with a mental illness, has absolutely no mental concept of right or wrong, nor does he/she have the mental capacity to learn that concept, much less grasp the idea of right from wrong and just views those who try to control them as being "mean people'. Gets in an argument (or not) and harms or even kills a neighbor. He's ignorant of the law regarding assualt/manslaughter, or the fact that laws are even there. Do we send him to prison or stick the needle in his arm because he's 'ignorant of the law'?

The defendant in both cases are "ignorant of the law" thru no fault of their own. One may have a lighter wallet but the other may forfeit their freedom or life...thru no fault of their on.

I agree the insanity defense has often been abused but no state should throw the baby out with the bath water, unless each of us individuals are willing to be the one to look the retarded guy in the eye as we inject him with deadly and toxic chemicals...

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-23-2020).]

IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 12711
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 89
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 07:19 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageClick Here to Email williegoatSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Some states have a "guilty but mentally ill" option. I think that is wise.

http://criminal-justice.ire...entally-ill-verdict/

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-23-2020).]

IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28201
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 221
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 07:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

I agree the insanity defense has often been abused but no state should throw the baby out with the bath water, unless each of us individuals are willing to be the one to look the retarded guy in the eye as we inject him with deadly and toxic chemicals...



In the case of KS, the baby was not thrown out with the bath water (IMHO), mental "condition" is allowed to be considered with in guidance.

Rams
IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 64994
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 07:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Some states have a "guilty but mentally ill" option. I think that is wise.

http://criminal-justice.ire...entally-ill-verdict/



As you said earlier:
Honestly, "correctional institutions" do not correct anyone, but what they can do is protect the public from those who might do us harm.

The article you linked to states the same thing regarding those found GBMI.

"Given the dearth of treatment services available for people in prisons with mental illnesses and the disproportionate number of prisoners who suffer from a mental illness, the reality is that many people with mental illnesses do not receive the treatment they require when they are in prison—regardless of whether they have been found GBMI or not."

problem Not solved, but warm fuzzy feeling inside because we "did something" regarding the issue.

IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 12711
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 89
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 07:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageClick Here to Email williegoatSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
One problem with our criminal justice system is that there are only two options for someone who has committed a crime: fines and/or incarceration. I think that is an oversimplification of the concept of "crime".

At some point, I would like to see offences analyzed and appropriate real correctional solutions applied. I don't pretend to know what the appropriate solution is for each crime, but I don't think that someone who has embezzled money should necessarily be treated the same as someone who has committed sexual assault.
IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 9976
From: New Port Richey, Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 189
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 07:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageClick Here to Email randyeSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
This news is a disaster for Ronald
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 8483
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 113
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 08:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Saving what I had just created here for another time.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-24-2020).]

IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 64994
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 08:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 32757
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 285
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 08:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwClick Here to Email cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
At some point, I would like to see offences analyzed and appropriate real correctional solutions applied. I don't pretend to know what the appropriate solution is for each crime, but I don't think that someone who has embezzled money should necessarily be treated the same as someone who has committed sexual assault.


I would think, hope, that is addressed by the sentencing guidelines.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 8969
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 192
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 08:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I don know if you are asking me a question or not here? But for the record I don't claim to be anything more or less than a person with an opinion.
That being said, I disagree with many opinions expressed here on PFF as well as people in general who I talk to. It is just human nature to have an opinion. Some we agree with, some are moot and some we disagree with.
Fact on the other hand is a different subject. How data is interpreted depends on several factors: being a victim of a crime and the perpetrators claim a bogus legal defense and get away from the full extent of the law is one reason people think differently. And for this reason I am in agreement with the SCOTUS. I honestly don't care if a person is insane or not, they should be held accountable for their actions especially when people are harmed in a crime.
IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 64994
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 09:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
I honestly don't care...

I suppose in the end, that is what it all comes down to.
Whether a person or any given demographic or society as a whole cares or not.
We do know tho, that a people tend to protect their own demographic above and sometimes, at the expense of, all others.
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 28201
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 221
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 09:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
We do know tho, that a people tend to protect their own demographic above and sometimes, at the expense of, all others.


Tribalism has existed since tribes were first formed. It is very unlikely to change any time soon unless tribes are eliminated.

Rams

IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 37306
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 331
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 10:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgClick Here to Email BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

I suppose in the end, that is what it all comes down to.
Whether a person or any given demographic or society as a whole cares or not.
We do know tho, that a people tend to protect their own demographic above and sometimes, at the expense of, all others.


That's pretty close to some of the smartest stuff I've heard recently...but why do we act like this is something new?
History alone tells us this is who we are!
Tribal, from root to flower.

Listen, we either believe in (physical/mental) evolution, or we don't.
Either way, we seem to need to be challenged, to move forward.

Given, kicking & screaming, but forward Ho!
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 8969
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 192
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 10:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

1. Define'mental illness' in the context applicable to the thread topic please.

I have faith that the system, as flawed as it is can decide that during a trial. I believe that taking away the loophole of an insanity defense is a good thing. People tend to feel pity for the mentally ill and a hatred for the frauds who just want to get away with crime. I view this SCOUTS decision as relieving any pressure to let a person off or anger for the attempt of manipulation. The jury are free of any pressure to view the case as is.
 
quote

2. No cure? No, but there are plenty of treatments that very often do work or at least control the affliction.

I have seen many people who take psychotropic medication to control moods or behavior, just stop taking the meds. They stop for several different reasons, but for the vast majority of people who take those medications, it is a choice. When they stop taking the meds they change.(RARELY do they become happy funny pleasant individuals who ever body loves to be around) This is a huge problem for the people around them, because very few people are forced to take the medications.
 
quote

3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There's a not-very-fine line between not bothering to inform one's self of the law, and not being able to do so.

I can't disagree, again you are correct.
I guess I see the jury as being able to sort that out during the trial. Rather than me or anyone else deciding the case outside the court room.
 
quote

Our constitution mandates that justice be applied equally to all.....

I agree. And that should be decided by the jury having all the facts
 
quote

Scenario.
1. You're driving down the road at 70mph, the speed limit but unbeknownst to you, 20 minutes beforehand someone has had a blowout, swerved offf the road and knocked down a 55 mph speedlimit sign. 20 miles farther down the road, police pull you over, write you a ticket for drivng 15 miles over the posted speed limit. You protest that you never saw a sign and the policeman says "Tell it to the judge". You are ignorant of the law, thru no fault of your own. The judge hears your story, doesn't believe you because the 55mph sign is now up and you have to pay the fine because you were 'ignorant of the law.'

Ok, I see this as basically the same as a person getting a detracted driver ticket for driving while on the phone.
 
quote

2. A person is born with a mental illness, has absolutely no mental concept of right or wrong, nor does he/she have the mental capacity to learn that concept, much less grasp the idea of right from wrong and just views those who try to control them as being "mean people'. Gets in an argument (or not) and harms or even kills a neighbor. He's ignorant of the law regarding assualt/manslaughter, or the fact that laws are even there. Do we send him to prison or stick the needle in his arm because he's 'ignorant of the law'?

I have genuine sympathy for a case like this, but again I have faith in the system to argue the case to a result.
 
quote

The defendant in both cases are "ignorant of the law" thru no fault of their own. One may have a lighter wallet but the other may forfeit their freedom or life...thru no fault of their on.

I agree the insanity defense has often been abused but no state should throw the baby out with the bath water, unless each of us individuals are willing to be the one to look the retarded guy in the eye as we inject him with deadly and toxic chemicals...


Crime does not always result in a just end, and I don't necessarily think a "retarded guy" should be put to death. I just think that even if the person is mentally ill, that they should not be unjustly sentenced harshly or lightly, the punishment should fit the crime, as decided by the jury who have all of the facts to make the most informed decision.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 8969
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 192
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 10:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Rickady88GT

8969 posts
Member since Dec 2002
 
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

I suppose in the end, that is what it all comes down to.
Whether a person or any given demographic or society as a whole cares or not.
We do know tho, that a people tend to protect their own demographic above and sometimes, at the expense of, all others.


You quoted me, but not necessarily represented my view?

Edit to admit that I neglected to quote rinselberg in the original post

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-23-2020).]

IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 64994
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post03-23-2020 10:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
You had already represented it.
I just emphasized the part that summarized it.


IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
cliffw
Member
Posts: 32757
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 285
Rate this member

Report this Post03-24-2020 03:42 AM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwClick Here to Email cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
I guess I see the jury as being able to sort that out during the trial. Rather than me or anyone else deciding the case outside the court room.

I agree. And that should be decided by the jury having all the facts.

I have genuine sympathy for a case like this, but again I have faith in the system to argue the case to a result.

Crime does not always result in a just end, ... I just think that even if the person is mentally ill, that they should not be unjustly sentenced harshly or lightly, the punishment should fit the crime, as decided by the jury who have all of the facts to make the most informed decision.



You say this yet agree with taking away from the jury what may well be an important aspect to the totality of the events. You do this outside the court room.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-24-2020).]

IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 9976
From: New Port Richey, Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 189
Rate this member

Report this Post03-24-2020 01:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageClick Here to Email randyeSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Saving what I had just created here for another time.





Now for a quick peek inside Ronald's head:

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-24-2020).]

IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 8969
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 192
Rate this member

Report this Post03-24-2020 04:04 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


You say this yet agree with taking away from the jury what may well be an important aspect to the totality of the events. You do this outside the court room.



Please explain
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 32757
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 285
Rate this member

Report this Post03-24-2020 07:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwClick Here to Email cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I will try.

Absent any criminal prosecution, mental conditions exist. From 'mild' such as our (me/wife) live in care, to out patient, of people treated with drugs, to 'hospitalized' with severe issues, to full blow insane.

We handicap people all the time, for parking, expectations of ability, financial (school tuition), rental amounts, to food stamps. I contend mental condition is a handicap. It should be considered in all aspects of certain lives.

A jury, inside the court room and involved with the particulars of of a case, should be able to have all the particulars of a case.

You, outside the courtroom, want to remove a real aspect of a case.

I might correct myself from earlier.

If I am not mistaken, to be able to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, first it is argued before the judge for the ability to do so. Judged so to speak. Then, it is 'judged' by a jury. A jury you say you have faith in to get it right.


IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 8969
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 192
Rate this member

Report this Post03-24-2020 11:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

I will try.

Absent any criminal prosecution, mental conditions exist. From 'mild' such as our (me/wife) live in care, to out patient, of people treated with drugs, to 'hospitalized' with severe issues, to full blow insane.

We handicap people all the time, for parking, expectations of ability, financial (school tuition), rental amounts, to food stamps. I contend mental condition is a handicap. It should be considered in all aspects of certain lives.

A jury, inside the court room and involved with the particulars of of a case, should be able to have all the particulars of a case.

You, outside the courtroom, want to remove a real aspect of a case.

I might correct myself from earlier.

If I am not mistaken, to be able to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, first it is argued before the judge for the ability to do so. Judged so to speak. Then, it is 'judged' by a jury. A jury you say you have faith in to get it right.



I kinda agree with you. In principal, but agree with the SCOTUS in the way they defined and argued against the insanity plea. It was abused to the point that it was argued to the Supreme Court. That in itself says that there is a problem with the system and it was addressed.
I agree that a jury should have the sole responsibility to hear out the case, NOT an arbitrary law that boxes in the jury to a predisposed conclusion.
IP: Logged

next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock