Lawyers: Is the "MATRIX" Defense Valid?

The ever-popular fantasy movie series (THE MATRIX) has been blamed for several cases of mass murder. Several of the defendents in these cases have blamed their watching of the movie, as the cause for their acts of violence. I am curious as to how a defense lawyer would use this in a trial:
Prosecutor: “So, when you opened fire, what was going through your mind?”
Defendent: “I remembered how those coolguys in black trenchcoats were blasting the police”
Prosecutor: Did you KILL all of those people?
Defendent: Like, you know, I thought I was in the Matrix!
Defense Lawyer" Your Honor, obviously my client was not responsible for his actions. The movie made him insane, and I request that the court drop the charges!
Judge: I agree, case dismissed!
So, how will the “Matrix” defense play out? Will it be as effective as the insanity defense?:confused:

It is the insanity defense. The defense attorney would argue that his client is insane because he believes he lives in the Matrix. The defendant would be evaluated and if the judge believed the defendant was insane, then he would not stand trial.

I heard the movie cited as a possible influence on the Columbine killers, but that was mostly speculation. What other killings are you talking about? Has any killer (rather than pundits) actually tried to say they were inspired by the Matrix?

In other words, can I have a citation?

Assuming that one is forthcoming, I’d say no. A movie is a movie and while some aren’t as violent as the Matrix and few are as stylish, people are expected to tell the difference between fiction and reality. Having seen the Matrix is no defense.

If a a defendant claims that he actually thinks that he’s in the Matrix (the movies or the device called the Matrix in the films), then he should be psychologically evaluated. If it is true (that he thinks he’s in the Matrix, that is) then he may be legally insane. But that would be true of any fantasy world. If a defendant claimed that he heard the voice of Clarance the angel from “It’s a Wonderful Life” telling him to burn things, then he may well be legally insane as well.

The Matrix phenomena would be of interest only to family research groups and pop psychologists who would tell us how this seemingly innocent series of films will turn little Timmy into a serial killer.

That happens to you too? It’s a bummer.

I would be unsurprised if it was mentioned as part of a defendant’s plea at some time in future. One of the reasons it was such an effective film was precisely because it dealt with “doubting reality”, which is a common symptom of certain disorders, particularly schizophrenia.

I can easily imagine a poorly educated defendant being asked by a court-appointed psychiatrist “How did you feel at the time of the offence?” and replying “Like life wasn’t real. Like I was in the Matrix or something”.

If the doctor was convinced that a disorder did exist, he would report this exchange in court.

If a sensationalist right-wing media then jumped on this tiny aspect of the case and trumpeted it as “Say you’re in the Matrix and get off! The system of Law is going to pot!”, my level of surprise would be minimal.

… which, incidentally, is NOT such a great result for the defendant. In Commonwealth nations at least, the result of a “successful” plea of insanity is to be detained at “Her Majesty’s pleasure”/“the Governor’s pleasure”.

Which means the defendent potentially may never be released.

Certainly, The Matrix could be a symptom of someone’s mental disorder and that might be a part of an insanity defense, but simply invoking The Matrix isn’t an insanity defense.

ralph124c, why would you think the “Matrix” defense would be different than the insanity defense?

I don’t know if there are jurisdictions for which this is true, but the insane stand trial. Defendants judged incompetent do not stand trial until they regain competency. The legal standards for competency and insanity are different and serve different purposes.

Menoccio -

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=579&e=3&u=/nm/20030519/en_nm/leisure_matrix_dc

I’m still looking for the Washington Post article referenced in this one. But yes, people (at least two) appear to be using it as a defense.

Scary.

Found it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1323-2003May16.html

It’s not a matter of “he’s innocent, it’s the movie’s fault,” it’s “he’s so nuts he thinks he’s in the movie.” If true, it seems like a reasonable defense, I suppose.

Really, it’s not speculation, it’s out-and-out bullshit. The Matrix was released on March 31, the massacre was on April 20. These kids CLEARLY didn’t just see the movie and decide “hey, let’s shoot up the school” in a matter of three weeks or less. The whole “Trenchcoat Mafia” thing has to predate the movie. I think they looked through these kids diaries too, and they were making bombs and planning this long before Keanu knew kung-fu. Blaming it on the movie is just loony.

I can see how the movie’s premise, that the world is unreal, that anyone in it could be an enemy in disguise, and that their lives are of little or no significance while my own is of immense significance, could resonate with someone already prone to this kind of mental illness. I don’t think the idea is new (didn’t “Crime and Punishment” explore some angles of it ?), but since the movie was so good, and so popular, it can therefore have a more widespread effect.

I doubt that sane people are being driven to kill by the ‘Matrix,’ but I can see how someone already ready to kill might find inspiration in it.

None of this, of course, should be taken as saying that this or any movie should be banned. Just that people who have mental illnesses that might lead them to be violent should take their meds regularly and not see ‘The Matrix.’

Ok, now let’s consider the metaphysical aspect of this for a moment, shall we?

So someone walks out and kills a bunch of people. On trial for murder, he says “I think we live in the Matrix. Therefore this isn’t real and I didn’t kill anybody.”

In america, or so I was taugh in school, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. The burden of proof is on the accusers.

Wouldn’t the prosecution have to PROVE that we are not, in fact, in the Matrix? Isn’t there a reasonable chance, in all honesty, that we ARE?

So it’s within the bounds of possibility that the defendant REALLY DIDN"T kill anybody… we really DO live in the matrix, and he’s NOT insane!

“Proven beyond reasonable doubt” is the phrase in the statute books I think you’ll find, Prephect.

The body cannot live without the mind; if you die in the Matrix, you die for real, therefore he did kill people.

Oops, perhaps I’m stretching the point?

Even if there is no “body”, destroying a computer program is killing a person if that program’s behavior is consistent with the behaviors we associate with “people”.

**

That’s about right. It is the prosecution’s burden to prove that the defendant did in fact murder someone.

**
I’m not a lawyer but I think such a defense would be called an affirmative defense. If the defense wants to claim that the Matrix exist then it is on them to prove that it does. To answer your other question, no, there is no reasonable chance that we all live in the Matrix. Go drink your Powerade now.

Marc

Wow, did this thread take a turn!

Or maybe I’m just imagining that it did.

Hmmmm. Better go kill someone to make sure.

Of course, some people aren’t convinced that being mad is a valid excuse for being bad…

qts: Excuse? No. Reason. Certainly.

In any case, the “treatment” is in many ways as bad as any punishment. Having visited people in both, I assure you that indefinite detention in a secure psychiatric ward is in no way preferable to a predefined period of incarceration in prison.

Regarding the burden of proof, I believe the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” easily covers this and other past attempts such as the “long lost identical twin” or the like. Beyond a certain threshold at the discretion of the judge, it becomes the burden of the defendant to prove that eg. he does have an identical twin, rather than the prosecution having to show that he doesn’t.

Well the joke is on you all, because the Matrix is real. I’ve known it for a long time, and apparently, so have the Wachowski brothers. But that doesn’t excuse murder. There are rules to this computer simulation. And when you get down to a priori reality and all that, living in the Matrix is just as “real” as, say, living in an energy pod somewhere. :smiley:

And might I add, I’m perfectly sane. Except the toaster keeps laughing at me. Excuse me while I set it straight…