9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The 9/11 murderers committed their crimes
under strictly M'Naughton circumstances,
to wit:
thay thought God desired that.
Thay did it to satisfy God,
as did M'Naughton.

(A minor distinction is that M'Naughton alleged,
and the court accepted, that the defendant believed
that God had spoken to him,
whereas we do not have representations of
direct Divine communication alleged by the 9/11 killers.
[The first 19 murderers left no evidence that thay believed this,
nor does Mousauwi allege it now.]
Apparently, their rationale was more theoretical theology.)

In the case at bar, Moussauwi's ill will against America
is based upon his theological conceptions, in common
with the other 19 hi jackers.

I have never supported the M'Naughton Rule.
I do NOT believe that the court shud have taken any interest
in what was going on between M'Naughton 's ears;
what counts shud have been limited to what he DID,
in killing the Queen's Defense Minister,
regardless of his beliefs.

I am not aware that Moussauwi has pled insanity.
If he DID,
I inquire of anyone who supports the M'Naughton Rule:
can u distinguish his case from the principle of M'Naughton ?

or do u believe that he shud not be punished,
but merely granted mental therapy in a hospital ?

.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,217 • Replies: 46

No top replies

For those of us who do not have law degrees, could you provide a precis of the M'Naughton Rule? I'm not really sure what, exactly, it is or how it is or may be applied.

0 Replies

Quote:

M'Naughten Rule n. a traditional "right and wrong" test of legal insanity in criminal prosecutions. Under M'Naughten (its name comes from the trial of a notorious English assassin in the early 1800s), a defendant is legally insane if he/she cannot distinguish between right and wrong in regard to the crime with which he/she is charged. If the judge or the jury finds that the accused could not tell the difference, then there could not be criminal intent. Considering modern psychiatry and psychology, tests for lack of capacity to "think straight" (with lots of high-priced expert testimony) are used in most states either under the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code or the "Durham Rule." (See: insanity, temporary insanity, "twinky" defense)

I think the Rule should have applied in the case of Andrea Yates and yet, despite her documented history of mental illness, it didn't.

0 Replies

I can't believe you encourage this joker by responding.

0 Replies

My bad, Set.

0 Replies

Even the annoyingly semi-literate can start a worthwhile thread. The M'Naughton Rule is an interesting topic. Maybe this should be in the law forum.

0 Replies

He or she can't even be bothered to spell "M'Naghten" correctly, so why should we pay any attention?

0 Replies

contrex wrote:

He or she can't even be bothered to spell "M'Naghten" correctly, so why should we pay any attention?

Well, I misspelled it too. Simple spelling errors are forgivable; adopting a defiantly idiosyncratic orthography less so. But, as I mentioned before, the M'Naghten Rule is worthy of debate, regardless of the identity of the poster who initiated it. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have never supported the M'Naughton Rule.
I do NOT believe that the court shud have taken any interest
in what was going on between M'Naughton 's ears;
what counts shud have been limited to what he DID,
in killing the Queen's Defense Minister,
regardless of his beliefs.

The courts always take into account an accused's state of mind. It makes a difference whether a person intends to commit a crime or if that person has acted accidentally or out of ignorance. If I shoot a gun at you, intending to kill you, I can be charged with attempted murder even if the gun is not loaded. On the other hand, if I shoot a toy gun at you as part of a game, but the gun is loaded with a pellet that, through some unusual chain of events, causes your death, it is unlikely that I would be charged with murder or even manslaughter. The mere act of shooting and killing, then, does not end the legal inquiry. The court must also look at the shooter's intent.

Almost every crime contains an element of intent (mens rea), so it makes perfect sense to inquire into the accused's state of mind and his ability to form intent. Whether or not the M'Naghten Rule is the correct standard by which to judge intent is an open question. I tend to regard it like Churchill regarded democracy: it's the worst choice, except for all the others that have been tried.

0 Replies

My main problem with the rule is the apparent arbitrariness of its application in US courts. I quite agree with Boomerang that the Andrea Yates case is a glaring example of an instance where insanity should have been the only logical defense. On the other hand, a would-be presidential assassin like Hinckley gets to spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital rather than a prison. There's something wrong with this picture.

Who decides whether the M'Naghten rule applies? Is it strictly up to the defense to invoke it? Or is it the judge who decides whether or not to admit such a defense?

0 Replies

I think that applying the Rule is nearly impossible since most people attempt to hide their crimes it shows that they knew what they were doing was wrong.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Quote:
M'Naughten Rule n. a traditional "right and wrong" test of legal insanity in criminal prosecutions. Under M'Naughten (its name comes from the trial of a notorious English assassin in the early 1800s), a defendant is legally insane if he/she cannot distinguish between right and wrong in regard to the crime with which he/she is charged. If the judge or the jury finds that the accused could not tell the difference, then there could not be criminal intent. Considering modern psychiatry and psychology, tests for lack of capacity to "think straight" (with lots of high-priced expert testimony) are used in most states either under the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code or the "Durham Rule." (See: insanity, temporary insanity, "twinky" defense)

I think the Rule should have applied in the case of Andrea Yates and yet,
despite her documented history of mental illness, it didn't.

The finder of fact,
the jury, had to decide whether to apply it to the facts;
or, to put it another way,
the jury had to decide whether the facts came within
that principle of law.

I don 't support that principle of law.
People shud be judged by what they DO,
not by their motives.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I can't believe you encourage this joker by responding.

A cry for censorship !
This guy must be POLITICALLY CORRECT !

0 Replies

No cry for censorship, just a minatory "consider the source" statement . . . not everyone knows right away that they have to do with a propagandist who likes to shout.

0 Replies

So now there is something RONG,
with propagating ideas ?

( unless they r politically correct ? )

0 Replies

No, but there is something wrong with shouting, and especially shouting biased content, which is propagandistic in nature, your sophomoric attempt at word games notwithstanding . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, but there is something wrong with shouting, and especially shouting biased content, which is propagandistic in nature, your sophomoric attempt at word games notwithstanding . . .

So your own " content " is never " biased " right ?

nor do u ever seek to propagate any ideas, either ?

David

0 Replies

I've said neither. Once again, your attempt to equate propaganda with the verb propagate, and suggest that propaganda is merely the innocent propagation of ideas, is sophomoric.

0 Replies

Okay. Wait a sec. I want to see if I understand your position, OmSig....

Z. Moussaoui was arrested for overstaying his visa.

He did not actually take part in 911 because he was already in jail.

Now if should judge people only on what they have done but not on what they had intended or thought then I suppose you think Moussaoui should just be deported? Maybe pay a fine? What?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I've said neither. Once again, your attempt to equate propaganda with the verb propagate, and suggest that propaganda is merely the innocent propagation of ideas, is sophomoric.

O, " the fallacy of the poisoned wells ";
u r calling me a liar,
and alleging that, by your leftist DEFINITION,
only lies can POSSIBLY issue from me
therefore ANYTHING that I propagate shud be IGNORED, or fled from.

0 Replies

No, i've said nothing of the sort. I am saying that you peddle propaganda, which is not the same at all as simply propagating ideas. Rant how you will, that won't change.

0 Replies

9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

9/11 Murderers: Reconsidering the MNaughton Rule