A hypothetical situation...

Member

for some strange reason, my brother and i were arguing over temporary insanity. He kept saying "there is no such thing" and "it's just an excuse" etc... I gave him a hypothetical situation...

a woman and her son are walking down the street. It's about nine at night and a drunk driver rips down the road and strikes the kid dead, but left the mother unscathed as she watched her son fly in the air and hit the pavement, dying on impact. The driver stops, and stumbles out of the car. Enraged, (or temporarily insane...?), she beats the driver to death. When the police come, she's still beating the man. She's arrested and tried. She pleads temporary insanity.

He still said she knew that it was wrong. i said she didn't, because she made no attempt to cover up her crime, proving she was innocent. He still insisted that she knew it was wrong.

thus concludes my life story - the movie shall come out soon.

what do y'all think?

Excelent

In the situation you described temporary insanity. I do believe in it, yes

Oompa Loofah

I think thegman could prolly define it better, but I do think a rage like that can be all-consuming and overwhelming. I know if anyone tried to harm my boy, I would kill them. But then that is premeditated in a way, isn't it?

I've seen dogs behave like this--where they just forget themselves and get into a snarling, fighting frenzy and then come out of it like nothing happened.

Member

could "shock" (medical condition) explain the mother's actions? is that good or bad in terms of her case?

Adjunct

Interesting. I guess temporary loss of saneness is possible in any given situation. I believe it is true yes.

Member

i'm not sure of the exact legal jargen... but what if provocation becomes involved. Is that similar to temporary insanity, in that in an intense situation you sort of draw a blank and go ballistic without being able to think twice?

Adjunct

Member

There would have to be a narrowly tailored set of facts that would result in my use of this type of defense. Remember, you're admitting guilt when you use it, and you're really trying to mitigate punishment. If a jury doesn't buy the defense outright, you're up the creek.

The crux of the defense is that the accused was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was "incapable of knowing the nature" of the alleged criminal act. The problem with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, because any examination by a psychiatrist has to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime.

If the facts line up, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or "crime of passion" can be a solid defense or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime.

Some people think it's bunk. I do, most of the time. But I can imagine a scenario where it would be a valid defense.

Adjunct

Thanks G for the "legal" prospective on that.
I did not know the legalese of it exactly.

Member

Adjunct

Member

The Pinball

i can only say that if that drunk ba$tard who slammed into my husband's car at 75 MPH crushing the trunk to the back windshield (my daughter was sleeping on the back seat) would have harmed a hair on her blessed head, i would have beaten his fat face into oblivion when i drove up on that accident scene. He was, of course, sound asleep at the wheel so he wouldn't have felt a thing.

i would have been glad to pay with my (what would have become a) worthless life at that point. hell hath no fury like a momma bear who drives up on a horriffic scene like that. i was nuts.

Frightened Inmate #2

A hypothetical situation...

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK