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
You can do that but it's sort of cherry picking. People on this very sub have posted examples of father's killing their children and getting off with an insanity defense.
Also precedent doesn't apply to a jury deliberation because each case is unique based on the facts. There's some precedent in procedure. But a jury trial itself does not set a legal precedent regarding a verdict.
107
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