So will Jared Loughner, the shooter in Arizona, get off by reason of insanity in his cases?

Under the law in most states, if a person is insane at the time of the commission of a crime that can be used as a defense. It doesn’t mean the person is innocent. It does mean that if a jury decides the person was insane, they can find him not guilty.

Before we look at Mr. Loughner’s situation, it’s important to understand the insanity defense. For more than 700 years English common law has recognized this defense in criminal proceedings. The case that defined the law occurred in 1843 with a defendant named Daniel McNaughton. Today, the law of the defense of insanity is called the “McNaughton Rule.”

Here in Minnesota we use the McNaughton Rule in criminal cases. Mr. Loughner faces charges in both Arizona state court and federal court. Both of these courts use a restricted form of the McNaughton Rule.

What is the rule?

In Minnesota, the rule has been included in the Rules of Criminal Procedure which says that it’s a defense to a crime “if the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, as not to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong.”

Here’s how the process generally works in a criminal case:

1. The defense lawyer notifies the court and the prosecutor that the accused will assert the defense of insanity.

2. The court will order a mental health examination of the accused by a trained professional who will advise the court if the defendant “labored under such a defect…” or not. (Professional is usually a psychiatrist)

3. If either side disagrees with the expert’s opinion, they may ask for a second opinion from a different doctor.

4. If either of the experts say the accused was insane, that issue can be presented to the jury through the testimony of the expert at trial.

The jury would make the decision about the ultimate question: is the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity?

Does “it work” very often? Are people often found not guilty by reason of insanity? Not in my over thirty years of experience. The McNaughton Rule is very narrow and difficult to fit within. Over the years, there have been other definitions of insanity tried in the courts which have been broader. Today, we’re back to the McNaughton Rule and very, very few accused people are found not guilty as a result.

Still, it’s a valid defense and there are some cases where it’s obvious to everyone the accused is insane. What if a jury were to acquit someone because of insanity? In my next post, we’ll discuss what happens in that case.

What do you think? Should the definition of insanity be broadened to include more people who are seriously mentally ill?

The post In Arizona–Will Loughner get off by Insanity? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Lots of bloggers and media people have made so much noise about this, they could probably blow apart the arch pictured here. (I suspect this is the very arch under which all the illegals are entering Arizona…but don’t tell anyone!)

I posted the other day, suggesting that the political climate in Arizona and their experience with criminals entering Arizona illegally may have a lot to do with this new law.

But then, I remembered they have a neighboring state, New Mexico, that doesn’t seem to have gotten into the fray at all. Neither has Texas. What’s the difference?

I can’t imagine that the border security, provided by the Border Patrol, is much different from state to state. Is Arizona flooded with an unusually high percentage of illegals compared to its neighbors?

There is one difference that pops out to me.

Arizona has an Hispanic population of 30%. Texas has a population of 36% and New Mexico has a population of 45%.

Is Arizona just exercising a form of racism? Considering the high population of Hispanics in both Texas and New Mexico, could the legislature/governor get a tough law like Arizona’s passed?

If the law in Arizona remains on the books, I anticipate lots of law suits and court challenges for people arrested under the provisions of the new law. It’ll be interesting what the Arizona Supreme Court says or, if the cases get appealed to federal court, what the feds say.

What are your thoughts?

The post What about Arizona's Neighbors? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The legislature just passed one of the most far-reaching immigration laws in the country. As I understand it, the law would allow police to stop people who “look” like they might be illegals and ask the not only for identification but also if they are in the country illegally. Of course, if they are are, the police can take action to begin deportation proceedings.

Should we be concerned?

On the one hand, this appears to be very scary. I’ve read blogs comparing this to Nazi Germany where Jews were stopped because they looked “Jewish.” But unless all the legislators in Arizona are nuts, is there more to this than meets the eye?

Granted, I think Arizona has some of the most politically conservative people in the country. Remember, this is the state where John McCain, who has voted for some of the most conservative legislation in his career, is now being challenged in a primary because he’s not conservative enough!

Still, the new immigration law is so far out there in comparison to the rest of the country, it makes me wonder if the rest of us are missing something.

I think it’s difficult for those of us living in Minnesota, who face the threat of only a few Canadian hockey players coming across the border, to fully understand the frustration of people in Arizona about the illegal criminal activity coming across their border. The drug trade with its violence is a real problem for them. People with serious diseases are coming across to receive free treatment in the Arizona hospitals at taxpayer expense. I’ve read blogs from public health officials warning that some of the diseases brought by illegals are unknown in our country and threaten to overwhelm their public health capabilities. So…

Do any of you recall that a few years ago, President George Bush promised a stop to illegals coming across the border by ordering the National Guard to seal the border of Arizona? The only problem was, after Bush made a splash in the media, he refused to fund the deployment of National Guard troops and equipment, so they left in a few weeks.

Could the legislation in Arizona be a power play?

Maybe the smart people in the legislature are trying to get the attention of the country to point out that no one else, including the federal government, is helping them seal the border against violent, criminal illegals.

The law, as I understand it, may not even be constitutional. Let’s see how the litigation plays out. In the meantime, maybe Arizona has purposely put this out there to get a reaction. Or, is it simply pandering by the politicians to the fear and concerns that many people in Arizona truly feel? The intelligent politicians must know this law will engender thousands of law suits and challenges. Did they pass it to be able to pacify their constituents?

I don’t know. What do you think? Is this a sophisticated move to get federal help or is the legislature and governor nuts?

The post Arizona Goes Nazi appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.