OT: Colorado shooting

[nolemmings]

pertinent language from Reid v. Covert:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. ... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

[Runscott]

The latest in this morning's news is evidence indicating possible schizophrenia.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The latest in this morning's news is evidence indicating possible schizophrenia.

The more I read about this guy I am thinking he very well may truly be mentally ill. At first I thought not but now it is seeming like he is.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by zljones

The more I read about this guy I am thinking he very well may truly be mentally ill. At first I thought not but now it is seeming like he is.

I don't think it will matter. Murder seems to be the line drawn by the public, and whether or not the killer was mentally ill is irrelevant to them - in fact, it's an impediment in their minds, to getting the justice that society needs. Here's an example, which shows the "common sense" of the jury:

"After pushing a woman, Kendra Webdale, under a moving train, Andrew Goldstein, a former schizophrenic psychiatric patient, was charged and convicted of second-degree murder. Though he had only been released from a mental facility for a couple weeks, the jury rejected Goldstein’s plea of insanity, and sentenced him to twenty-five-to-life in prison. However, to prevent similar incidents, New York passed “Kendra’s Law”, which, had it been in place sooner, would have forced Goldstein to take medication for his condition."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, I think juries are skeptical of mental illness defenses because it's difficult to swallow the proposition that someone who carries out a pre-meditated crime is so impaired that they aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or controlling their conduct. Particularly where the evidence of insanity typically would be an expert psychiatrist paid for by the defense, which has been contradicted by a prosecution psychiatrist.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scott, I think juries are skeptical of mental illness defenses because it's difficult to swallow the proposition that someone who carries out a pre-meditated crime is so impaired that they aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or controlling their conduct. Particularly where the evidence of insanity typically would be an expert psychiatrist paid for by the defense, which has been contradicted by a prosecution psychiatrist.

Peter, I'm skeptical of such insanity defenses as well, but the example I showed above indicates that society needs its pound of flesh, even when they know someone was insane PRIOR to killing. I also understand that most people don't understand that the ability to plan a killing does not mean that someone is operating in his own mind - nor do they care (although I'm sure some have slight qualms at having the insane lethally injected), as long as the person was acting with a mind that performed acts rational for a killer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott let me give you a hypothetical. Schizophrenic, does fine on meds, takes a medication holiday because of side effects or for whatever reason, in uncontrolled state commits murder. Just put him back on meds and send him on his way?