[traditional1]

" Psychiatrist and FOX commentator also came to that conclusion....and I would hardly call him an uninformed whacko......"

Seems to me, we got to much expertin' goin' on here.....

Everyone, who spends enough money to buy the credentials, suddenly becomes an expert on a subject.

Common sense be damned; we can always rationalize away the behavior of lawbreakers by painting them as "victims" verified by some so-called expert, but we can't excuse their law-breaking....If we want to excuse it, then everyone has some short-coming that should be an excuse for their actions, and we should all just move along.

The "she couldn't help herself due to her condition" excuse in no way excuses her from the law. Now, that said, the insanity defense should be removed from every felony statute nationwide, and we will have NO REPEAT OFFENDERS, nor will we have the O.J. juries like the one here in the Yates trial, who want to make a social statement and disregard the murder victims because the law allows an "insane" person to murder with impunity (save only a few years in a hospital, awaiting a "qualified expert" to bless her as "sane" again..)

[NorCalRepub]

.....well experts abound in all fields so I don't know how you get around that....and Dr. Krauthammer is very esteemed in that and the political field.....but again, I'm not excusing anything....I'm interpreting the data and coming to a conclusion....don't know how you will get away from O.J. juries...but getting of the insanity defense because you don't like it is not the answer......

....I do have one question....how do you know that jury was trying to make a social statement?....or is that just an emotional response because YOU did not like the verdict? I have no problem with you believing what you want....but my opinions are equally as valid and couched in much study, research and contemplation......thanks for your insight