taylor (06/24/82)
One of the points about the Hinckley insanity verdict that concerns me is the future usefulness of the 'trial by a jury consisting of one's peers.' Several of the jurors have said that they felt totally overwhelmed by all of the evidence, and this is very believable. Do we really expect 12 'normal' jurors to resolve the conflict between conflicting diagnoses made by 'expert' psychiatrists? Isn't this somewhat analagous to picking 12 people at random in your local shopping mall and asking them to decide whether you should be running one of your programs in Pascal or Fortran? It seems to me that the concept of a trial by jury is present to ensure a fair trial and to try as best they can to resolve what the facts are when there appears to be a conflict in the 'facts.' Perhaps this is one of the stronger arguments for the 'guilty but insane' verdict. The jury is then primarily concerned with the guilt or innocence, not resolving the conflict between feuding psychiatrists. The question then becomes who decides the question of insanity, or the degree of insanity. I don't know, but I think this is a question which will be receiving a great deal of attention from our criminal justice experts for several years. Steve Taylor NC Educational Computing Service ...!decvax!duke!mcnc!taylor (919) 549-0671
hwe (07/04/82)
Remember when Memorix vs. IBM was thrown out, the judge ruled that "He did not feel that it was possible to put together a jury compatent to hear the evedence". Applies to insanity too...