Alyssa Bustamante

[Warrenton]

Warrenton has eloquently described the hardships of a life sentence. But if the possible influence of Prozac should relieve her of the death penalty, why shouldn't it relieve her of a life sentence? Or of a 30-year sentence? And so on.

The answer to this question lies the concept of "mitigation."  For a long time, probably forever, judges and juries have looked to see "how much" guilt a defendant has.  A famous example from literature is Jean Valjean, who though a thief, was a thief through hunger, not out of a greedy desire to deprive someone of a loaf of bread.  A scriptural example of mitigation was King David's order to deal gently with Absolom.  It was, however, not carried out.  

Mitigation, however, speaks only to the severity of punishment, not to the culpability for the crime.  In many states, "insanity" is a very high burden, and a defendant must show that she cannot tell right from wrong, or is so deranged that she does not appreciate the nature of her acts.  The classic example is someone who is so delusional that they kill in the belief that they are fighting some brute beast.  This is distinguished from mere impairment of the ability to tell right from wrong is called "diminshed capacity," and in many states, it does not form the basis of an insanity defense.  However, dimished capacity is a factor in mitigation, since someone who is in full possession of her faculties and  is motivated by a calculating greed or some other kind of malice, is more evil than someone whose ability to restrain herself is impaired by the use of validly prescribed drugs that she needs.  Such a person's crime is at least partly due to events beyond her control, and to that extent, her punishment should be less than a more evil defendant.  

[verenaerin]

Warrenton has eloquently described the hardships of a life sentence. But if the possible influence of Prozac should relieve her of the death penalty, why shouldn't it relieve her of a life sentence? Or of a 30-year sentence? And so on.

Excellent point! If she's not responsible, why should she be punished at all?

If this mind-altering drug she was on was responsible for this (and we will never know if it had anything to do with it or not), then her punishment should be a maximum-security mental institution. That's where all dangerous mentally ill people should be.

I don't know why some of you are carrying on as though those of us discussing the Prozac angle and how it may have affected her mind are out-of-touch libs who think she should be free to roam the streets and go on the Oprah show. The girl is clearly dangerous and should not be allowed to go free. Since she was taking a drug that messes with the mind (again, that is the sole purpose of the drug), discussing what impact this drug may have had on her behavior isn't unreasonable. What does seem unreasonable is dismissing the Prozac angle as irrelevant to this case. Obviously, Prozac affects the mind. If it didn't, people wouldn't be taking it.

Yes, well said Jenn. It seems that no one wants to have a discussion about this.

Reading your statement, I see that we actually agree, though I expressed it differently. When I said that she should still be punished for her crime, I was thinking of jail/ mental institution/ max security type thing, as you mentioned. Though perhaps you think she should be put away because of the danger she poses, not the crime she committed? Could you clarify?

[Warrenton]

Warrenton has eloquently described the hardships of a life sentence. But if the possible influence of Prozac should relieve her of the death penalty, why shouldn't it relieve her of a life sentence? Or of a 30-year sentence? And so on.

It could never be proven either way.

That depends on what you mean by "proven."  This gets into the burdens of proof that each side bears.  The prosecutor must prove the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.  The prosecutor has no burden to prove the sanity of the defendant - if she wants to place that in issue, she has the burden to introduce enough evidence that the jury feels that the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she could form criminal intent.  There are no hard and fast rules as to what evidence is sufficient to do this, any more than there are hard and fast rules to prove that she had the requisite criminal intent.  Evidence of strange behavior when she took prozac, coupled with evidence that the behavior abated when she did not take it would at least be admissible.  Some doctors have probably researched it, and the jury could hear from different experts about that, and consider their biases.  For instance, the jury could think the defendant's expert is just a "hired gun," but on the other hand, the jury could think the proscution's doctor was obviously covering for the med company to avoid possible products liability claims.  

When lawyers talk about "proven", they mean "that which the jury eventually decides."  So, something does not need to be proved first, before the jury can consider it.  The "proof," whether strong or weak, is offered to the jury for its deliberation.  The jury decides whether the point was proved or not.

[alphonsusjr]

I'd like to see the extent to which it was proven that her ability to restrain herself was impaired by Prozac. By the way, I'm a lawyer too, and by proven I don't mean "that which the jury eventually decides." 

At any rate, for a variety of reasons, I maintain that a death sentence would be more merciful than a life sentence.

[Warrenton]

I'd like to see the extent to which it was proven that her ability to restrain herself was impaired by Prozac.

At any rate, for a variety of reasons, I maintain that a death sentence would be more merciful than a life sentence.

For the first, you would want to read a synopsis of the trial. 

For the second, I think you are theoretically correct.  Conceptually, life in prison is tantamount to saying someone cannot live, and cannot be reformed, which is almost indistinguishable from saying someone must die.  If the sentence were carried out promptly, it would work better in terms of mercy, and it would have a much more edifying effect on the people.  Under the modern system though, capital sentences tend toward the bizarre, with little rhyme or reason between who gets a death sentence and who gets a term of years, and with the interminable years of appeals, in which defendants live for up to a decade, or more, never knowing whether they are condemned or spared. 

[Jenn]

Though perhaps you think she should be put away because of the danger she poses, not the crime she committed? Could you clarify?

I just want to be clear before I answer. Are you asking me if she should be put away as punishment vs. being put away simply because she is dangerous?

[verenaerin]

Warrenton has eloquently described the hardships of a life sentence. But if the possible influence of Prozac should relieve her of the death penalty, why shouldn't it relieve her of a life sentence? Or of a 30-year sentence? And so on.

It could never be proven either way.

That depends on what you mean by "proven."  This gets into the burdens of proof that each side bears.  The prosecutor must prove the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.  The prosecutor has no burden to prove the sanity of the defendant - if she wants to place that in issue, she has the burden to introduce enough evidence that the jury feels that the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she could form criminal intent.  There are no hard and fast rules as to what evidence is sufficient to do this, any more than there are hard and fast rules to prove that she had the requisite criminal intent.  Evidence of strange behavior when she took prozac, coupled with evidence that the behavior abated when she did not take it would at least be admissible.  Some doctors have probably researched it, and the jury could hear from different experts about that, and consider their biases.  For instance, the jury could think the defendant's expert is just a "hired gun," but on the other hand, the jury could think the proscution's doctor was obviously covering for the med company to avoid possible products liability claims.  

When lawyers talk about "proven", they mean "that which the jury eventually decides."  So, something does not need to be proved first, before the jury can consider it.  The "proof," whether strong or weak, is offered to the jury for its deliberation.  The jury decides whether the point was proved or not.

Is there any precedence for this? In regards to a medication?

[verenaerin]

Though perhaps you think she should be put away because of the danger she poses, not the crime she committed? Could you clarify?

I just want to be clear before I answer. Are you asking me if she should be put away as punishment vs. being put away simply because she is dangerous?

Yes. (Wouldn't this be so much easier if we were just talking  We could have discussed this whole thread in 5 minutes, forums are funny that way.)

[Iolanthe]

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Prozac is totally irrelevant; just if it's enough to make her less guilty in some way. She doesn't seem to be claiming that she can't remember what happened or had no control over her behavior, and if that's the case, she's still morally responsible.

I mean, if she did this while slightly drunk, would anyone be making the argument that she's not guilty of murder?

[verenaerin]

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Prozac is totally irrelevant; just if it's enough to make her less guilty in some way. She doesn't seem to be claiming that she can't remember what happened or had no control over her behavior, and if that's the case, she's still morally responsible.

I mean, if she did this while slightly drunk, would anyone be making the argument that she's not guilty of murder?

Do you believe in drug reactions that impede the mind and conscience? In general, not related to the specifics of this case?