The U.S. Supreme Court rules you're not entitled to an insanity defense


Well-known member

By a 6-3 vote, they said that Kansas has a right to convict people of crimes even if the evidence shows the defendant didn't know right from wrong. Or, specifically, didn't know that what he was doing was illegal (that's what the government means when it talks about "wrongfulness".)

Well, I think this may be a good development, actually, because we're moving in the direction of saying "fuck psychology; we won't let it affect our courts' rulings." I would like to see a day when defense attorneys no longer feel impelled to offer arguments that their client was fucked up in the head and that's why he did all that bad stuff, as though that should be some reason why he should be given lenience, or as the case usually is these days, why he should be put through a bunch of treatment and supervision and have restrictions put on his liberty, either instead of or in addition to incarceration.


Psychiatry has a history of freeing people convicted of crimes and locking people up who are not even accused of breaking the law, it's all about power meaning they should be the ones decided who is locked up and not the court.

What the supreme court did was to essert that courts are supreme over psychiatry, at least on paper.

If you broke the law due to insanity thats a pretty good reason to lock you up, in vintologi the solution is to reduce you to property of someone else, maybe it will be some pervert giving you female hormones in order to enjoy sex with you later.