Insane Lieyers from Hell
In a decision that only a Lieyer could produce SCOTUS announced last Thursday that an accused man can be deprived of his right to defend himself in court without the “aid” of a lieyer because he is mentally ill while being tried for a “crime” because he is not mentally ill. US law on mental illness exempts the mentally ill from guilt for crimes. Legal hearings are held to determine if the accused party is sane or mentally competent to understand the nature and guilt of the crime he is accused of committing. A person who is mentally defective so that he can't understand the crime can not be held guilty of crime according to long established legal theory. Instead of being tried for crime, such mentally defective people are sent for mental treatment and kept in institutions where they are not a threat to themselves or others.
When a man is tried in the US, he has a right to have a lieyer representing him in court, or advising him in court. But he has always had a right to reject the advice of lieyers if he doesn't trust their advice. Now SCOTUS has ruled that a menially ill man may be deprived of his right to reject a lieyer in court because he is not mentally competent to make that decision. Only a lieyer could decide that a man is concurrently both sane and insane under law – and which category he falls in depends on which decision is most detrimental to his life.
The case focused on Ahmad Edwards, who was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 2005 following a shooting outside an Indianapolis department store in 1999. The state determined that Edwards suffers from mental illness, including schizophrenia and delusions. He spent most of the five years after the shooting in state psychiatric facilities. A reasonable application of law would assume that a man who has schizophrenia and delusions sufficient to need 5 years imprisonment in psychiatric institutions is not sane enough to be convicted of criminal responsibility for his acts. If he is sane, one might ask, why was he held and treated for mental illness all those years?
It would normally seem to any sane and rational person that a man is either sane or he is mentally ill. If he is mentally ill he should not be tried under law that requires him to be sane. If he is sane, then he can not be deprived of his right to decided about his lieyer because he is mentally ill. The State of Indiana seems to acknowledge that Mr. Edwards has severe mental illness, hence their confinement of him in state psychiatric facilities. Nevertheless they also claim that he is sane for the purpose of trial and conviction of various charges.
Bob does not know whether Mr. Edwards is sane or mentally ill. Bob's rational mind assumes that Mr. Edwards is either legally sane or legally mentally ill, but not both. Only in the twisted Satanic mind of a lieyer can mutually exclusive conditions both be applied to the same man in the same circumstances. From consideration of this twisted irrational decision it becomes more and more clear that those suffering the most from severe mental illness wear black robes of hell and spew irrational law in a stone building in Washington DC.
Read Yahoo News Story
When a man is tried in the US, he has a right to have a lieyer representing him in court, or advising him in court. But he has always had a right to reject the advice of lieyers if he doesn't trust their advice. Now SCOTUS has ruled that a menially ill man may be deprived of his right to reject a lieyer in court because he is not mentally competent to make that decision. Only a lieyer could decide that a man is concurrently both sane and insane under law – and which category he falls in depends on which decision is most detrimental to his life.
The case focused on Ahmad Edwards, who was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 2005 following a shooting outside an Indianapolis department store in 1999. The state determined that Edwards suffers from mental illness, including schizophrenia and delusions. He spent most of the five years after the shooting in state psychiatric facilities. A reasonable application of law would assume that a man who has schizophrenia and delusions sufficient to need 5 years imprisonment in psychiatric institutions is not sane enough to be convicted of criminal responsibility for his acts. If he is sane, one might ask, why was he held and treated for mental illness all those years?
It would normally seem to any sane and rational person that a man is either sane or he is mentally ill. If he is mentally ill he should not be tried under law that requires him to be sane. If he is sane, then he can not be deprived of his right to decided about his lieyer because he is mentally ill. The State of Indiana seems to acknowledge that Mr. Edwards has severe mental illness, hence their confinement of him in state psychiatric facilities. Nevertheless they also claim that he is sane for the purpose of trial and conviction of various charges.
Bob does not know whether Mr. Edwards is sane or mentally ill. Bob's rational mind assumes that Mr. Edwards is either legally sane or legally mentally ill, but not both. Only in the twisted Satanic mind of a lieyer can mutually exclusive conditions both be applied to the same man in the same circumstances. From consideration of this twisted irrational decision it becomes more and more clear that those suffering the most from severe mental illness wear black robes of hell and spew irrational law in a stone building in Washington DC.
Read Yahoo News Story
posted by Bob | Tuesday, June 24, 2008
1 Comments:
Only in the twisted Satanic mind of a lieyer can mutually exclusive conditions both be applied to the same man in the same circumstances. From consideration of this twisted irrational decision it becomes more and more clear that those suffering the most from severe mental illness wear black robes of hell and spew irrational law in a stone building in Washington DC.
Rational arguement.
You're doing it wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home