Res Ipsa Loquitur

Excellent call.

Along similar lines, juries in a criminal cases do not find the defendant to be "innocent." They find the defendent to be "not guilty," which means that the state did not prove every element of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Small point, fine line, but I'm just sayin'.

I thought that insanity precluded mens rea, meaning that if you were insane at the time, you didn't commit the crime.

Murder is (killing a person) + (some assigned level of mens rea). Insanity wipes out mens rea, thus you have killing + nothing -- not murder as defined by the statute. You are acquitted.

I also thought you go to a mental institution because you're dangerously insane, not as punishment for your crime. I could swear I've heard of people found not guilty by reason of insanity who walked free that day, because they were no longer insane.

As a side note, I think that the only difference between this mom and the first one (who was found guilty, not insane) is that this one had a better haircut and better clothes. Sad things come out of jury trials sometimes.

Aaron's correct. "Acquitted" is used correctly in that story.

Not quite right Aaron. Lacking the prerequisite mens rea does not mean that you did not commit the crime. It means that you will not be held culpable for your actions under the law.

You are correct that confinement to a mental instituition isn't for punishment. But your example is of a claim of temporary insanity, not applicable in this case. Temporary insanity is best defined as "I was crazy when I committed the crime, but I'm ok now." Nice trick if you can pull it off.

Like Jim says, an acquittal only means the prosecution did not prove the elements of the charge(s). My point is that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity means that the person committed the crime, but was insane at the time so they won't be held liable. And that the two are not the same thing.

I thought that word was a little odd myself when I heard the report on the radio. Acquitted to me seems to imply "found innocent of wrongdoing".

Further proof that it was a good decision not to go to law school. For me, I mean.

D

Rita, I know you're the lawyer and I'm not; you probably know this stuff in your sleep. But I thought the insanity defense, regardless of whether it's temporary or permanent, was the negation of one of the elements of the crime.

For example, if murder is defined in Texas as "purposely causing the death of a person," doesn't insanity negate the "purpose" mens rea element and thus mean that the "crime" (purposeful + killing) never was committed? The "actus reus" (causing the death of a person) was committed, but since the "purpose" element is missing, the person isn't guilty of the crime?