I thought it was interesting that in his closing arguments, the DA asked that the jury returne a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or guilty but mentally insane. Even though he added after that, "I perfer you should return a guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict,"(paraphrasing here) the DA appears to concede that HN could be off.
Yes, it's an interesting thing in GA. (Not sure how many other states do this.)
The options are:
Not Guilty, which has been taken off the table since HN admitted the crime
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, which means that he never goes to jail, only treatment, and then when he's no longer dangerous gets to go on about his life. This is BAD b/c all of the state's people say he isn't mentally ill so would hardly be able to then argue to hold him. He'd probably be free the next day.
Guilty but Mentally Ill, which means he goes to jail but gets treatment for his mental illness while there. I could live with this since he would still have to serve out his sentence, but again, since the state says he's not mentally ill, all it would really do is be used as mitigation in sentencing.
Last option is Guilty. I'm with the DA - this is the only one that makes any sense.
I'm glad they have the GBMI option in case there are some lingering doubts about how messed up this guy is. But the closing really hit home on the malingering, so I don't really think the jury will go for it.
ETA: I didn't get to watch the jury charge, so I don't know if any of the punishment can factor into the jury's decision. I wonder how many of them understand these differences already.
