Bit of a calculated risk, though. If the defense can get the jury to buy the insanity defense, then he goes to the loony bin--and, the way things go nowadays, probably gets released in fairly short order. It's the correct move, but risky.
}:-)4
I have to agree with you it might be risky but the JUDGE took a stand ... and I admire him for that.
So many seem to waffle or just go along. I am just thrilled with this guy.
I doubt the killer has enough money for lawyers that are good enough to pull the insanity defense successfully. A competent lawyer could, without that much trouble, prove an insanity defense, however if this kid is going with a ‘public defendant’ (aka court-appointed defendants) then that will not be the case. The judge made the right decision, and one that I highly doubt will backfire.
There is still some risk though …..after all there are some public defendants who are actually quite capable, however I doubt the risk is that much. With that said there is a big reason why 90% of all convictions in the US stem from plea bargains. With a plea bargain (almost) everyone is happy:
- Court-appointed defendants are only paid for the first 15-20 hours worth of work, thus they have little incentive to prolong a case.
- Prosecutors hate to lose cases, thus a plea bargain is like an instant feather in their cap.
- It saves the local government money. Let me illustrate this with an example given by Dirk Olin (national editor of ‘The American Lawyer’): There are 100 cases a year; the D.A. has a budget of $100,000. With only $1,000 to spend investigating and prosecuting each case, half the defendants will be acquitted. But if the D.A. can get 90 defendants to cop pleas, he can concentrate his resources on the 10 who refuse, spend $10,000 on each case and get a conviction rate of 90 percent.
The only issue is the defendant. It could even be argued that most defendants should say no to plea bargains, but the vast majority of people who accept them do not know better (and they are told by their court-appointed defendants, and most who accept them are people who cannot afford true legal representation, that they should opt for them). Thus when told that by pleading guilt they will get a lighter sentence, and that if they go for a full trial they will lose and get the full letter of the law (and especially when it is their court-appointed lawyer telling them this), most people will opt for a plea.
Someone with money to fight a case should simply not go that route (at least in most cases). On the other hand, an ax-murderer who is on tap for the electric chair due to a first-degree murder rap, and who is either facing solid evidence against him or a weak defence (read: court-appointed defendant), would be better off copping a plea since then the first-degree charge (with ol’ sparky looming on the horizon) would be dropped for the lesser second-degree murder charge.
On the other hand even ‘solid evidence’ is not that solid when one has enough money to get good legal representation. Think about people like OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Robert Blake. All 3 cases would have convicted ‘normal’ (read: average discretionary income) people, and done so easily, but add lawyers that can milk a snake and suddenly all 3 men are scott free.
Anyways, I don’t think the judge made a mistake here. This kid is going down, and going down hard!
They seldom do.