Quote:

---

endogenous said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

endogenous said:
"Here's the first sentence of law.com's lengthy definition: Insanity. (link is external) n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior." -- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is

The guy was definitely legally insane. It was a total travesty that he was executed.

---

I don't think so and neither did the courts nor the state shrinks.

---

This is from a Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court to try to get a retrial. He definitely fit the definition of legally insane.

"VA doctors documented Brannan’s deteriorating
condition, his increased withdrawal from society, his
inexplicable behavior and “bizarre” speech, and his
“continued and chronic depression. In early 1989, his VA
psychiatrist noted that Brannan was “preoccupied
with total aspects of the Vietnam conflict, in which
he served as a point observer, to the point of giving
up employment, perhaps a marital relationship, and
limiting his contacts with society as a whole except
for Vietnam veterans.” Brannan was
then hospitalized for several weeks for treatment
“centered on psychotherapy dealing with PTSD
issues” and “mood disturbance The staff found
Brannan to be depressed and chronically suicidal..

1 Under VA guidelines, a declaration of 100% disability from
PTSD requires “[t]otal occupation and social impairment, due to
such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or
communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly
inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or
others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living
(including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene);
disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close
relatives, own occupation, or own name.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.
According to the VA, when Brannan was first deemed 100%
disabled, only 6% of veterans receiving compensation for any
disability were rated as 100% disabled. RX155 at 9160.

Brannan’s VA psychiatrist concluded that
Brannan was “very much in need of intensive,
psychotherapeutically oriented therapy and would be
an excellent candidate of the Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder Long-Term Program in the Augusta VA
Medical Center,” in
part because his long-standing history of depression,
and family history of depression and other mood
disorders, “severely predisposed” Brannan to
developing PTSD. Only
veterans with the most severe PTSD were admitted
to the program, and only after a thorough screening
process. Brannan was admitted to the
program in 1989.

By 1991, Brannan’s deteriorating condition
required another five-month hospitalization at a VA
Medical Center, during which he “continued to have
symptoms of PTSD, described as decreased sleep,
nightmares, depression, isolation, rage, anger,
decreased concentration, survival guilt and intrusive
thoughts,” and he was declared 100% disabled.
Later, his treating VA psychiatrist, Dr. William Boyer
diagnosed Brannan as also suffering from Bipolar
Disorder and “cyclical mood disorder.  Dr. Boyer
prescribed a medication regimen that included an
antidepressant, a mood stabilizer, and a sedative
Throughout his years of treatment, the chaos
and violence of Brannan’s combat experiences
dominated his thoughts, as Dr. Boyer would have
testified at trial had he been called.
Brannan frequently recounted how he
was troubled by his Vietnam experiences and by
survivor guilt. For example, Dr. Boyer would have
testified that Brannan still felt guilt that another
soldier took Brannan’s place in a helicopter, which
crashed, killing the man.

Approximately one month before the murder of
Deputy Dinkheller, Brannan related to Dr. Boyer for
the first time several stories of how he had narrowly
escaped death in Vietnam.

It is undisputed that, at the time of the murder,
Brannan had not taken his medications regularly for
at least five days Because Dr. Boyer did not testify,
the effect of not being on the medications was never
explained to the jury."
-- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjwiYPD793LAhVCeD4KHXyWAy0QFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsblog.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FRevised-Brannan-Cert-Petition-4-7-v3-FINAL.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEB08u-HvgHrsXN6zECnJngFrrkhQ&sig2=DQmIAMdnfyPxqFgaT9NT8g

---

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:
It's not like the guy didn't do everyone a favor by putting wings on pigs.  Fuck the cops.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:
It's not like the guy didn't do everyone a favor by putting wings on pigs.  Fuck the cops.

---

Without the "pigs" you would be owned by scum like me.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Do you believe every writ a lawyer writes?  Nor does that go to any question of whether he was capable of telling right from wrong, which is an essential feature of the legal definition of insanity.

---

Quote:

---

insanity

n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

---

Quote:

---

The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong," following the "M'Naughten rule" from 19th century England. Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training.

---

Quote:

---

The Durham Rule or "product test" was adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1954, in the case of Durham v. U.S. (214 F.2d 862), and states that "... an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect".

---

Quote:

---

Under the MPC standard, which represents the modern trend, a defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct "if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."

---

Quote:

---

Under this new test only perpetrators suffering from severe mental illnesses at the time of the crime could successfully employ the insanity defense.

---