Capri
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,776
- Reaction score
- 89
Whether someone knows right from wrong is important if you are trying to EXCUSE someone's behavior based on insanity. There has been no attempt in this case to argue insanity, or that Casey was so mentally ill she did not know right from wrong.
If you are merely trying to EXPLAIN why someone is acting strangely--e.g., dancing and partying after one's baby has died through some terrible no-fault accident--it does not matter whether they know right from wrong. That's not the issue. The issue is whether they are "weird" in some way that would explain their behavior for the jury.
For the penalty phase (which is the same as the sentencing phase), it also doesn't matter if the person knew right from wrong, because it is too late at the penalty phase to be discussing insanity--that's an issue for the guilt phase. At the penalty phase, you are also no longer trying to EXPLAIN the strange behavior in order to get the jury to buy a theory of non-guilt (e.g., an accident theory). The jury has already found the person guilty at that point, so obviously they did not buy your theory. Instead, at the penalty phase, you are trying to get the jury to feel sorry for the person and not give them the death penalty. So you can bring up a true mental illness, a behavioral disorder, abuse that did NOT lead to any behavioral disorder, etc.
So the only time it matters whether the person knew right from wrong is for an insanity defense. For any other purpose, all sorts of mental deficiencies and disorders might come into play.
Thanks AZ, crystal clear now- thanks for all you do here to help us understand! :blowkiss: