Um, sweaty…I just asked Grok about the legal tests for insanity defenses used in the USA and its applicability to Decarlos Dejuan Brown, Jr.’s killing of Iryna Zartutska. Pre-M'Naghten Standards (U.S. Common Law before the mid-1840s)Likely outcome: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI) or finding of non-culpability. He would not be convicted.M'Naghten Rule (1843 England; Adopted variably in U.S. Starting 1840s)Likely outcome: NGRI probable, especially with strong psychiatric evidence of delusion-driven action.ALI Model Penal Code Test (1962)Likely outcome: NGRI highly likely.Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA, Federal-only)Likely outcome: A viable but contested insanity defense.Note that North Carolina still uses the M'Naghten Rule to this day.
all charges dropped btw, he'll be on release in a mental hospital with low security.
I can't believe a MADMAN would do something like this. MADMEN are a bane on society. When are we going to do something about these MADMEN killing innocent people?
>>536755298Uhm, I was under the impression this was a 'lunchtime rowdy,' not a "madman." Can anyone clarify?
>>536755298Madmen stole my bike
>>536755201RetardNot guilty for whatever reason is a trial verdictIf you're found incompetent to stand trial then there can be no trial and therefore no verdict
>>536755201If he's not sentient enough to be held accountable for his actions, he's not sentient enough to realize he's alive in the first place. Execute him.
People think an asylum is better than a prison. Lol. It's not. They will keep him in the asylum for the rest of his life and chemically lobotomize him where he's just a drooling docile stump of a human, this whole unfit angle isn't what they think it is, unless he's legit unfit. Which may be the case.
>>536755298Kek. Add it to the list.
>>536755298He literally is a madman. What do you think a schizophrenic is?
>>536755201If the average nigger IQ is like 80, and 80 is also the cut off for being a retard, then all niggers could claim retardation in defense
>>536755201this is a perfect example of why intent and culpability need to be treated separately.an insane person *may* legitimately lack intent if, say, they truly have no idea what they are doing --but for purposes of society's safety, they are still "culpable" because after all: no one else can be held to have committed the acts they committed, thus it must be their fault --and the point i'm making here is that protective acts of confinement or execution should be based on the culpability wherein someone's likelihood of rehabilitiation factors into whether the permanence of execution is pursued -- -- that all said, however. I believe he possessed both intent, culpability, and awareness throughout the incident because heA. immediately fled the scene, andB. said to someone "i killed that white bitch"thus he should absolutely fry in any case.
>>536755635The purpose of execution should not be punishment, but protection of society. If a person is found to be so dangerous, whether by insanity or malice, they should be executed. The "social deterrence" itself is an emergent effect of the likely outcome either way.
>>536758988...otherwise, why ever execute anyone, if malice can be assuaged by drugging?
