kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/06/86)
[ 'Fraud', as I understand it, is by 'consent', but with the one
party misrepresenting him/her/itself to the other. ...
By consent I mean informed consent.
Also, I've always thought that "not guilty by reason of insanity"
was a judgement that the person had performed the act, but was not
'responsible' for it (whatever that means) - not "innocent". -CWM]
Right. I think that the verdict should not be called 'guilty and
insane' or perhaps 'guilty but insane'. I don't think it should be
called 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. A person who is not guilty
should go free.
Some states now have a verdict 'guilty but mentally ill'. Not quite
sure what the point in that is. I have never heard of a mental
illness that destroys free will. Why not a verdict 'guilty but
physically ill' or 'guilty but nearsighted and overweight'?
I think insanity is an overused defense. It should only apply if
the defendant really had no idea what he was doing. For instance if
he thought the person he was shooting was a giant cockroach.
Obviously, it is often difficult to tell what the defendant was
thinking. But the Hinckley case offends common sense.
Also, I think that nobody found not guilty by reason of insanity
should be involuntarily confined for a longer period than he could
have been imprisoned had he been convicted of the crime.
In fact, nobody should ever be involuntarily committed unless it is
found by a court during a criminal trial that he has committed a
crime.
...Keith
[ Well, 'informed consent' depends on the point of view. Surely a
con-man gives a stilted picture of reality to the mark, but the target
considers him/herself to be well informed (the mark of a really artful
con, after all, is that the mark gives the money over enthus-
iastically). I myself could greatly benefit from a defense of
'guilty but nearsighted and overweight'... -CWM]
-------