The occasion of this question is this news article
The public defender for the man charged with attacking Nancy Pelosi’s husband is claiming that the defendant’s sincere beliefs have to be taken into account when judging his conduct. While I very much doubt that any jury would find his actions in any way justifiable, I was thinking that maybe the defender is trying (probably behind her client’s back) for an insanity defense.
So at what point does “crackpot” cross the line into “unable to understand that what they did was wrong”?
I am no psychologist, but my understanding is that schizophrenic people actually hear or see things that aren’t there.
Whereas a conspiracy theorist isn’t hallucinating. He smells, sees, tastes and hears the exact same things we do. He may have a different interpretation - just like a sports fan sees the same calls by the ref and thinks, “That ref is BIASED against my team!” - but the sports fan isn’t actually hallucinating and thinking that the ref just pulled out a revolver and shot one of the players on the field.
Okay, some research shows that I’m behind the times; modern diagnoses don’t consider it “schizophrenia”. I believe it’s now classified as Persecutory delusion - Wikipedia although there is some overlap in that schizophrenics can, due to disordered thought processes, include paranoia.
While it is his attorney’s job to provide a spirited defense, if the guy is coo-coo for cocoa puffs he should have never been walking around in public. That’s the real tragedy here.
Even if DePape truly believed all that stuff about Pelosi, was he still sane enough to realize that it was illegal for him to break into her home and assault her husband? It doesn’t even matter if he thought it was “right” or “moral”……”he needed killing” is not a defense for murder even when it’s true, and for good reason.
That’s the real legal question, I think. It wouldn’t have been legal for me to break into Jeffrey Epstein’s house and kneecap him, even though he was guilty of horrible things. And if I had suspected that architect of being the Long Island serial killer, that still wouldn’t have make it legal for me to kill him - even if my suspicions were right.
That said, I’m extremely glad this case is going to trial, the right wing bullshit was particularly foul on this one and I think a highly visible public trial would go a long way towards countering those allegations.
So IANAL but I think this is a common misconception about what is required to find someone not guilty my reason of insanity. This oft quoted guide comes from 1800s Britain and has long since been replaced by standards that put a much heavier burden of proof on the defense.
In fact in some US jurisdictions it is not possible to claim an insanity defense no matter how much evidence is the accused was acting because of mental illness.
It’s one person’s ranking of leading conspiracy theories, dividing them into categories such as We Have Questions, Unequivocally Wrong But Mostly Harmless, Dangerous to Yourself And Others.
That’s not what his public defender is arguing. It is not an insanity defense behind his back, nor is it claiming his sincere beliefs in some way justifies or mitigates his conduct. They are making a very specific motion (which I doubt will succeed) that he is being improperly charged in the wrong venue because (the motion claims) his attack on Paul Pelosi was not related to Nancy Pelosi’s official duties. From the article:
Federal public defender Jodi Linker, however, argued that the attack was “wholly unrelated” to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s official duties, meaning the federal charges should not have been filed, CNN reports. “This is not a ‘whodunit.’ But what the government fails to acknowledge is the ‘whydunit,’ and the why matters in this case,” she said.
Even if her motion were to succeed and the federal charges be thrown out, that would have no effect on the state charges of attempted murder, only the
federal charges including assault on the immediate family member of a federal official and the attempted kidnapping of a federal official.
The motion will most likely be dismissed and the federal charges will stand, but the public defender has got to do something to earn her pay, and she has a completely hopeless case.
Devout conspiracy theorists i.e. those following the usual pattern of believing in multiple conspiracies are already deep into paranoia, but that doesn’t make them paranoid schizophrenics. Apparently most of these people function on a daily basis without serious consequences of their fetishes, other than provoking eye-rolling on the part of their acquaintances and driving loved ones to distraction.
When the fuzzy line between paranoia and obsession gets crossed, innocent people get hurt.
“ … Sledgehammer, zip ties, gloves, duct tape, cash, a Canadian passport, a Canadian birth certificate, men’s clothes, a video game console, and two (2) inflatable, multicolor unicorn costumes”
Shoot, a feller could have a pretty good time in Vegas with all that stuff!
If I tell you the man across the street stole my wallet and put it in his back pocket, and you went and ‘retrieved’ it for me is my telling you that a valid defense?
If I was a juror, I would expect proof he did due diligence research to the contrary. At some point being stupid should not be a defense. Maybe, all of the time.
From what I see in SovCit and Flearth videos, there is a distinction to be made between an honest belief and a chosen belief that dismisses any and all evidence to the contrary.
No, the classic has to be the Apollo moon landing deniers. They literally will not accept proof insofar is available to anyone.
I had mistakenly assumed Lunar Reconnaissance satellite photos of the landing sites taken from orbit would put the matter to rest. One would think. Right?
I’d never heard of the Tartarian Empire before reading that. How have I missed such a wonderful conspiracy theory! A race of (possibly) giants responsible for all our great architecture! They build the Great Wall in order to keep the Chinese out! WWI and WWII were just cover stories for eliminating all traces of this race of benevolent superbeings!
This is really the nut of the issue, IMHO. The disgraced former President “believed” he won the election, so he “thinks” he was justified in sending a mob to the Capitol to somehow halt the proceedings that ring-in his rival as President. It doesn’t matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove in the court of law - ignorance does not make you innocent.
One thing this place taught me a while ago is the difference between ignorance and stupidity:
“Ignorance is okay. It just means you haven’t learned something yet, but you can learn by seeking more information.
Stupidity is refusing to avail one’s self to information that could challenge your dearly held beliefs.”
There are indeed laws that consider a person’s belief and intent. That’s the reason for the difference between first-degree murder and negligent homicide, for example. But it seems to me that this situation is not one of those times.