dan (06/24/82)
A while back I heard a radio news story about a man who had found a bag of money that had fallen out of the back of an armored truck. The bag contained several hundred thousand dollars, much of which the man started spending wildly (of course). Well, the cops caught up to him, arrested him, and brought him to trial on some dumb charge. His defense was that he went temporarily insane upon finding all that money. The jury agreed with his contention unamimously, and he went free. This is a true story (and an acceptable usage of the "insanity" plea). I welcome comments. Dan O'Connell
rodolf (06/25/82)
I think that the insanity plea might be a bit misused in the case of the spending spree, too. There have been cases where someone finds a lot of money and RETURNS it. True, THOSE people have been branded insane (for returning the money), but at least they were being honest and obeying the law. I prefer the system where there is a third type of verdict: guilty, but insane. Under this type of conviction, you can be committed, but once you are deemed well, you finish your sentence in prison instead of being released. In the case of the big spender, I think a judge or jury would find him "guilty, but insane",declare him well, and give him six months probation. However, in the case of Hinckley, it would have allowed the jury the option of finding him insane and not having to worry about him being loose in 50 days. Rick Lindsley (uwvax!rodolf)
davidson (06/25/82)
The story about the man who found a bag of money makes me curious: What is the legality of claiming ownership over lost items? If one cannot simply possess them, is there any legal basis for insisting on a reward for the service of finding them? I have always found the legal definitions of sanity and insanity amusing. Generally, I think that people are as responsible for being incapacitated by insanity as they are for anything else, although once they've gotten into the habit of being insane (or of not compensating for an organic mental problem), they may find it harder to act responsibly. Greg
djj (06/25/82)
I wonder if the jury would have been so forgiving if that man had
invested the money in tax-free municipal bonds or the like.
It would be interesting to know just what the criteria were to determine
his insanity: the rate of expenditure (if he spent the money at a slower
rate, would he have been less insane); the type of purchases (does buying
a Porsche make him less insane than going to Vegas and gambling); how soon
after finding the money he started his spree; etc, etc, etc.
Another influencing factor would be the affluence of the man who found
the money. Certainly, a man with a gross income of $100,000/year should
be less insane than a man who receives only welfare checks if both
were to find the bag of money (????)!
Then again, . . . . I think you can see where this line of reasoning
is headed. Assuming some accurate decision can be made concerning
inanity (I meant to type 'insanity', but somehow 'inanity' fits!), it
must certainly be tempered with a consideration for the circumstances
of the person determined insane. Isn't this a violation of the
equal protection clause in the Constitution???
Dave Johnson
BTL - Piscataway
P.S. Hinckley is guilty and should be locked away and forced to watch
home movies of Jodie Foster forever!