This Vang case will obviously wind up with a flea bag lawyer spewing a defense of temporary insanity for the troubled Vang. So who cares if a murderer is insane. By nature of taking a life in cold blood, you think that person has their head on straight to begin with? We can go through history and see what the plea of insanity has done for defendents. Maybe Vang won't get off free of charge, but could possibly see a relaxed sentence based on being temporarily insane.
And btw, who gives a %#@! what Vang's daughter has to say about her dad being a loving father and great person that has shocked her by this behavior. Do we really need to know that, even if it were true? This is nothing more than the media helping out in leading up to the temporary insanity angle. [:@]
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
I agree there is too much that would negate an insanity defense. Read the Police report he admits to things that make an insanity defense impossible. Even if he did not too many insantiy defenses get the person off.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
It seems that the day will come when lawyers and psychiatrists begin classifying anger as a form of insanity -- everyone who commits a crime while angry will get off. Then it will be greed as a form of insanity. The it will go on and on...
I'm not saying this in regards to this case, but more as a general disgust I have with what I think is the abuse of the insanity plea. When not abused, I think it is a legit defense.
I take exception to the "temporary insanity" line of bullchips ,
you're either insane or you're not . I also figure if you kill someone you should forfeit your own life whether you're insane or not . A loony who kills is still a killer . Why feed someone who kills for the rest of their life or risk having them do it again ? Take 'em out back and cap 'em ! [:@]
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
I agree. We hear about criminals having served their time and getting back into the world, and the saying is "they have paid their debt to society." In my book, killing someone incurs a debt that cannot be repaid to society by the killer. Additionally, I believe that by killing -- I should say murder, as some killing may be justified or accidental, in which case other responses may be appropriate -- the killer sets themself outside of society and our laws, and hence beyond the protection of our laws and humane considerations. None of this is black letter law, of course, just my gut feelings about what makes sense and ought to be the case. A swift trial and a swift execution of a death sentence is what is appropriate in this case, but it will be anything but swift is my bet.
The "insanity defense" is what is called an affirmative defense in our legal system, meaning that it shifts the burden of proof from the state to the defendant. Basically, to use an affirmative defense the defendant is ADMITTING that the crime occured and that he did it to the court, but that he was insane and unable to realize that his actions were wrong or criminal. As soon as a defendant puts forth an affirmative defense, he's now GUILTY until he proves that he was not able, in the eyes of the law, to understand the wrongness of his actions. Another common affirmative defense is "self defense."
The other bright point is that, contrary to what we see on fictional courtroom dramas, VERY FEW insanity defenses are successful. The defendant has to be a genuine, certifiable nut-job for the defense to work, and it usually comes with the stipulation of indefinate committment to a state mental institution. An insanity defense is usually used as a last resort when the defense knows almost for certain that the defendant would be convicted using a standard defense strategy. So they put forth an affirmative defense in the off chance they can get a jury to buy into it. They're to the point where they're darned if they do, and darned if they don't.
If Vang is going to use an insanity defense, it means his lawyers already know he's screwed.
Plea of Insanity, your opinion
