Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)



More on John Hinckley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.



The problem with those laws was it removed what is called the "Mens Rea" (Latin for "guilty mind" from finding someone guilty of a crime and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that you can NOT be found guilty of any crime UNLESS intent to do something wrong is found. i.e. the defendant MUST have some sort of INTENT to do something "evil".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea



Now, in insanity cases the traditional Common Law rule was simple, people who committed a crime but did NOT have the mental capacity to understand what he or she was doing was WRONG, lack a "guilty mind" (or sometime called an "Evil mind" and thus could NOT be guilty of ANY crime.



The Supreme Court used the concept that to commit a crime the criminal MUST have some sort of intent to do something that he or she should have known to be illegal, to strike down most State Laws that eliminated the insanity defense, i.e. Insane people do NOT have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and as such can never have the intent to do a "guilty deed".



In 1859 a New York Politician heard that his wife was having an affair with another man, on hearing that statement, he went to were that other man was at and killed him. At trial he claimed he was so enraged by what he heard he just reacted without thinking and thus never had a "guilty mind" when he killed the other man. The jury bought the argument, which is the first time what we call "Temporary insanity" was used as a defense (The politician later became a Union General in the Civil War).



More on the Politician in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sickles



More on the Insanity Defense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#Insanity_Defense_Reform_Act_of_1984



Now, the Supreme Court has upheld changing the burden of proof from the Prosecution to the Defense AND that the evidence must be "Clear and Convincing" as opposed to the Common Law rule that the burden to show someone sane was on the Prosecution AND the burden to prove someone insane was by the preponderance of the evidence. On the other hand the Court has struck down state laws that abolished the insanity defense in total (And subsequent to those rulings, the States adopted what they had before the mad rush to rewrite the insanity laws after Reagan;s attempted assassination).



Thus, any prosecutor MUST show, in this case, that the Father did NOT just react, but had some intent (not just an intent to commit murder, any intent to do anything of a "guilty" nature) to do something to the deceased.



Thus how do you PROVE beyond a Reasonable Doubt that this father, hearing his child crying, and then finding her being raped, did NOT just react but instead THOUGHT about what he was going to do and did it. If the Father had waited, then the concept of the Father having a "guilty mind" might be provable, but since the Father reacted AT THE SAME TIME HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER BEING RAPPED, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Father had the INTENT to kill the deceased can NOT be proved.



This comes up in vehicular homicide cases all the time. Vehicular homicide is just manslaughter given a new name for jurys were reluctant to convict drivers on manslaughter charges when they kill people on the highways while driving a car. Now, if you are operating the vehicle in a safe and legal way, you are NOT guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter. vehicular homicide/manslaughter comes up when someone is negligent and do to the negligence someone is killed. Given that a Car is a one to two ton death machine, the courts have ALWAYS held drivers to an almost strict liability if someone dies.



At the same time the courts have refused to make such crimes truly Strict liability crimes (i.e Strict Liability would be if you are driving a car, just driving the car is enough to make you guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter if anyone is killed in an accident, no court has made that the rule for vehicular homicide/manslaughter).



To be found guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter some sort of gross violation of the traffic laws must be found to be a contributory cause of the death (i.e going faster then a safe speed, being impaired with alcohol or violating some other rule of the road that contributed to the accident when someone is killed). Again the courts have upheld such convictions BUT only if some violation of the rules of the Road is first found AND it contributed to the accident (failing to watch for people walking along the road, failing to watch for bicyclists, failing to watch for other vehicles can be contributory factors).



On the other hand, if they was no way the driver could have prevented causing the accident, there is no guilty mind and thus no charge even of vehicular homicide/manslaughter. I.e. operating the vehicle at a safe speed (Could be nice if within the speed limit but a safe speed can be exceed the speed limit, but the burden to show that is on the person charged NOT the prosecution who can rely on the fact the posted speed limit is the maximum safe speed), watching what is in front of the vehicle, and the side (and the rear via the mirrors), and the reason someone died was NOT do to anything the driver did OR could have prevented (i.e. the other vehicle or pedestrian or cyclist darted out in front of the vehicle, the operator lost control of the vehicle do to some fault in the road etc).



More on Vehicular Homicide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide



Just pointing out, even in insanity cases and vehicular homicide/manslaughter cases you need to show some sort of "guilty mind" before you can convict someone of a crime. The "guilty mind" does NOT have to be to kill someone, it can be as simple as driving fast to get to work sooner, thinking since you have four wheel drive you do NOT have to slow down for ice and snow, being distracted by talking on a cell phone or texting etc). In simple terms you need to show some sort of intent to do something NOT just a person reacting to something. In this case it would be hard to prove anything more then the Father just reacted, and that is NOT even manslaughter.



Side note: Involuntary manslaughter is the crime when someone does a deed do to being "provoked" or otherwise done without any intent to actually kill someone. The classic situation is someone slaps someone, and the person slapped then punch the slapper, the slapper falls and hits his or her head on something and dies.



Involuntary manslaughter occurs in a lot of abuse cases. The abuser hits who he (generally a he, but sometimes a her) has been abusing, and this time the abused victim dies. No intent to kill the abused victim, in fact in most cases the abuser did not even THINK about hitting the victim, he just did it. In such cases impossible to show any intent to commit Murder (no evil thought before hand, most such abuse is just done not thought out), but it is clear that hitting someone is unacceptable, thus hitting someone is the product of a "guilty mind",



Involuntary manslaughter is the nearest thing the Father could be charged with, but unlike abuse cases, you have the factor the Father was also protecting his child. Protecting one's child is NOT an inherently criminal act and his actions to do so would be acceptable to most people and thus NOT an unacceptable reaction. Thus not guilty of even Involuntary manslaughter.



More on Manslaughter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter After Reagan was shot, various states decided to re-write their insanity laws so to prevent someone like Hinckley (the man who shot Reagan) from being found NOT guilty do to insanity.More on John HinckleyThe problem with those laws was it removed what is called the "Mens Rea" (Latin for "guilty mind"from finding someone guilty of a crime and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that you can NOT be found guilty of any crime UNLESS intent to do something wrong is found. i.e. the defendant MUST have some sort of INTENT to do something "evil".Now, in insanity cases the traditional Common Law rule was simple, people who committed a crime but did NOT have the mental capacity to understand what he or she was doing was WRONG, lack a "guilty mind" (or sometime called an "Evil mind"and thus could NOT be guilty of ANY crime.The Supreme Court used the concept that to commit a crime the criminal MUST have some sort of intent to do something that he or she should have known to be illegal, to strike down most State Laws that eliminated the insanity defense, i.e. Insane people do NOT have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and as such can never have the intent to do a "guilty deed".In 1859 a New York Politician heard that his wife was having an affair with another man, on hearing that statement, he went to were that other man was at and killed him. At trial he claimed he was so enraged by what he heard he just reacted without thinking and thus never had a "guilty mind" when he killed the other man. The jury bought the argument, which is the first time what we call "Temporary insanity" was used as a defense (The politician later became a Union General in the Civil War).More on the Politician in question:More on the Insanity Defense:Now, the Supreme Court has upheld changing the burden of proof from the Prosecution to the Defense AND that the evidence must be "Clear and Convincing" as opposed to the Common Law rule that the burden to show someone sane was on the Prosecution AND the burden to prove someone insane was by the preponderance of the evidence. On the other hand the Court has struck down state laws that abolished the insanity defense in total (And subsequent to those rulings, the States adopted what they had before the mad rush to rewrite the insanity laws after Reagan;s attempted assassination).Thus, any prosecutor MUST show, in this case, that the Father did NOT just react, but had some intent (not just an intent to commit murder, any intent to do anything of a "guilty" nature) to do something to the deceased.Thus how do you PROVE beyond a Reasonable Doubt that this father, hearing his child crying, and then finding her being raped, did NOT just react but instead THOUGHT about what he was going to do and did it. If the Father had waited, then the concept of the Father having a "guilty mind" might be provable, but since the Father reacted AT THE SAME TIME HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER BEING RAPPED, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Father had the INTENT to kill the deceased can NOT be proved.This comes up in vehicular homicide cases all the time. Vehicular homicide is just manslaughter given a new name for jurys were reluctant to convict drivers on manslaughter charges when they kill people on the highways while driving a car. Now, if you are operating the vehicle in a safe and legal way, you are NOT guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter. vehicular homicide/manslaughter comes up when someone is negligent and do to the negligence someone is killed. Given that a Car is a one to two ton death machine, the courts have ALWAYS held drivers to an almost strict liability if someone dies.At the same time the courts have refused to make such crimes truly Strict liability crimes (i.e Strict Liability would be if you are driving a car, just driving the car is enough to make you guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter if anyone is killed in an accident, no court has made that the rule for vehicular homicide/manslaughter).To be found guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter some sort of gross violation of the traffic laws must be found to be a contributory cause of the death (i.e going faster then a safe speed, being impaired with alcohol or violating some other rule of the road that contributed to the accident when someone is killed). Again the courts have upheld such convictions BUT only if some violation of the rules of the Road is first found AND it contributed to the accident (failing to watch for people walking along the road, failing to watch for bicyclists, failing to watch for other vehicles can be contributory factors).On the other hand, if they was no way the driver could have prevented causing the accident, there is no guilty mind and thus no charge even of vehicular homicide/manslaughter. I.e. operating the vehicle at a safe speed (Could be nice if within the speed limit but a safe speed can be exceed the speed limit, but the burden to show that is on the person charged NOT the prosecution who can rely on the fact the posted speed limit is the maximum safe speed), watching what is in front of the vehicle, and the side (and the rear via the mirrors), and the reason someone died was NOT do to anything the driver did OR could have prevented (i.e. the other vehicle or pedestrian or cyclist darted out in front of the vehicle, the operator lost control of the vehicle do to some fault in the road etc).More on Vehicular Homicide:Just pointing out, even in insanity cases and vehicular homicide/manslaughter cases you need to show some sort of "guilty mind" before you can convict someone of a crime. The "guilty mind" does NOT have to be to kill someone, it can be as simple as driving fast to get to work sooner, thinking since you have four wheel drive you do NOT have to slow down for ice and snow, being distracted by talking on a cell phone or texting etc). In simple terms you need to show some sort of intent to do something NOT just a person reacting to something. In this case it would be hard to prove anything more then the Father just reacted, and that is NOT even manslaughter.Side note: Involuntary manslaughter is the crime when someone does a deed do to being "provoked" or otherwise done without any intent to actually kill someone. The classic situation is someone slaps someone, and the person slapped then punch the slapper, the slapper falls and hits his or her head on something and dies.Involuntary manslaughter occurs in a lot of abuse cases. The abuser hits who he (generally a he, but sometimes a her) has been abusing, and this time the abused victim dies. No intent to kill the abused victim, in fact in most cases the abuser did not even THINK about hitting the victim, he just did it. In such cases impossible to show any intent to commit Murder (no evil thought before hand, most such abuse is just done not thought out), but it is clear that hitting someone is unacceptable, thus hitting someone is the product of a "guilty mind",Involuntary manslaughter is the nearest thing the Father could be charged with, but unlike abuse cases, you have the factor the Father was also protecting his child. Protecting one's child is NOT an inherently criminal act and his actions to do so would be acceptable to most people and thus NOT an unacceptable reaction. Thus not guilty of even Involuntary manslaughter.More on Manslaughter: