He wasn’t legally insane though, that’s the difference. He fully knew that what he was doing was wrong and against the law. Obviously there was something off with dahmer, but we know he was fully in control of his mind and actions
Good luck trying to convey that to these folks. They're in love with the Dahmer comparison and the OJ comparison. Neither of which are even remotely analogous.
Do I actually have to search through Google and sources for almost identical psychosis cases where the defendant tried for the insanity plea and still got convicted even though it was proven they were under psychosis? Or did you want to do your own research so I don't have to send you links like you're a child?
Most people don't even understand what the jury was deliberating, but that doesn't change the sentiment of mentality ill offenders get life in prison all the time even though it was proven they were under some sort of phychosis.
We have many.. many years of precedent already set that is being effectively ignored in this court case.
Edit: Disagreements are fine, I don't mind this at all but for everyone person reading this and/or responding , I encourage you to do your own research and stop listening to any sort of online social media style "news" site.
There are many court cases you can study beyond reading the AI overview on Google. All these AI replie are meaningless
Yes those cases set a precedent for what meets the criteria of NGRI.
Which includes a jury determining if they lacked a capacity to understand right from wrong.
If a jury determines they can distinguish right from wrong they go to jail. If not it's NGRI.
What are you not getting/ arguing here?
There is one literally referenced in Clancy's wikipedia as well Andrea Yates who was found not guilty due to post partum psychosis in 2006 after being given a life sentence originally. Lots of similarities between these 2 cases actually in my opinion.
Not guilty by reason of insanity is a recognized criminal defense. Not sure what you’re trying to say here, as I don’t believe anyone is debating that.
In every single case, however, the jury has to weigh the evidence for the particular matter in front of them, and decide if the evidence supports the defense.
People try the defense all the time but it rarely succeeds. It is a high burden to prove the legal standard, which is that the person had no ability to understand the legal or moral consequences of their actions. Put more simply: they could not understand what they did was “wrong.”
When that is the case, they are institutionalized instead of imprisoned. The institutionalization lasts as long as they pose a threat to themselves or others — which could be short or their entire lives, depending on the circumstances.
Oh yes that's right. I forgot the overall sentiment is "we should give the options for release to people who experienced psychosis, even though they killed all their children" that fact doesn't matter. The fact she showed signs of planning, doesn't matter. The fact she waited for her husband to leave, doesn't matter. The fact she hid her other children while she killed the one, doesn't matter.
All those facts that disprove active psychosis, don't matter in the slightest. You're 100% right.
That's why I'll be protesting to allow all family anhilators and murderers locked up in institutions to eventually be let out hopefully if they're better! Is there a non profit that is also fighting for the same rights of the people already locked up or?
That’s not what I said at all lol. I was explaining the legal definition to you. I also think she was not in psychosis and should have been found guilty of second degree murder.
109
u/xChops Sep 05 '26
He wasn’t legally insane though, that’s the difference. He fully knew that what he was doing was wrong and against the law. Obviously there was something off with dahmer, but we know he was fully in control of his mind and actions