I know the insanity defense is very difficult to prove. this whole trial's outcome will depend on the jurors understanding the definition of "insanity". Hope the experts educate them and us on the "correct" definition- if there is one.
I had to look up some definitions myself (as always, the nosy Queen :floorlaugh
Insanity: The Real Definition
The term insane is outdated parlance in the mental health community. No legitimate medical or clinical professional would be caught dead saying it in public. It's a legal term. A defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if his or her lawyer can provide clear and convincing evidence that he/she was suffering from severe mental illness (i.e., psychotic disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, or organic brain illness) which prevented him/her f
rom knowing that the crime committed was, in fact, an illegal act. Because it is a legal distinction, and not a medical one, although forensic psychologists may offer clinical opinions about the mental health of a defendant, only a judge or jury can make determinations about a defendant's insanity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/insanity-definition_n_1159927.html
--
insanity
n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the District Attorney or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 72 hours) to be examined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superior/county/district court. A hearing is then held before a judge, with the person in question entitled to legal representation, to determine if she/he should be placed in an institution or special facility. The person ordered institutionalized at the hearing may request a trial to determine sanity. Particularly since the original hearings are often routine with the psychiatric findings accepted by the judge. In criminal cases, a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" will require a trial on the issue of the defendant's insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. In these cases the defendant usually claims "temporary insanity" (crazy then, but okay now). The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is
whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong," following the "M'Naughten rule" from 19th century England. Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. A claim by a criminal defendant of his/her insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns. Sex offenders may be found to be sane for all purposes except the compulsive dangerous and/or antisocial behavior. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes.
See also: insanity defense
M'Naughten rule temporary insanity
(
M'Naughten rule:
n. a traditional "right and wrong" test of legal insanity in criminal prosecutions. Under M'Naughten (its name comes from the trial of a notorious English assassin in the early 1800s), a defendant is legally insane if he/she cannot distinguish between right and wrong in regard to the crime with which he/she is charged. If the judge or the jury finds that the accused could not tell the difference, then there could not be criminal intent. Considering modern psychiatry and psychology, tests for lack of capacity to "think straight" (with lots of high-priced expert testi-mony) are used in most states either under the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code or the "Durham Rule.")
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=979
-------------------
Did Julie know what she was doing when she shot her children. That's the important factor for me. What was she thinking she was doing by shooting them?
