Accused Wis. Arsonist Found Not Mentally Responsible

January 30, 2008

  • January 30, 2008 at 11:20 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My thoughts on this are not straightforward, but I will attempt brevity.

    Not able to stop himself because he really like fire? Give me a break! Okay, the mass rapist wasn’t able to stop himself because he or she really liked sex, so they weren’t really responsible for raping people. No good? How about the mass murderer wasn’t really responsible because he really liked killing? No again? Let’s try this one – the bank robber who robbed 30 banks isn’t really responsible because he really likes money? No? So why does this one fit? I could see if they proved he had absoultely no ability to determine right from wrong, but not responsible because he really likes fire? Give me a break.

    The only good part is it’s not like he’s going to walk free. I don’t know how Wisconsin is, but in Oregon when you’re remanded to the state looney bin it’s almost worse than going to prison. If I remember what a nurse who works there told me correctly, once they are cured (in Oregon) they then go on to serve time for their crime; so the sentence is actually longer than if they hadn’t copped an insanity plea. Again, I don’t know what Wisconsin does.

  • January 30, 2008 at 11:21 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My spelling is terrible! Please forgive the typos.

  • January 30, 2008 at 1:49 am
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Courts suck! The guy is guilty…..there is no argument he set the fires hence he is de facto responsible. The moron had enough sense to know how to set the fire. We can’t excuse deviant behavior just because some nut case does it.

  • January 30, 2008 at 1:49 am
    Macarvi says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wait a minute…how can they “go on to serve time for their crime” if they’ve been found not guilty by reason of insanity? If they were found not guilty, doesn’t that mean they didn’t commit a crime? And if they didn’t commit a crime, what on earth are they serving time for?

  • January 30, 2008 at 2:04 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The “not guilty” by reason of insanity is pure, un-adulterated B.S. It should be “guilty” but insane. The perp can’t have it both ways. If he doesn’t know what he’s doing he won’t know he’s in the slammer.

  • January 30, 2008 at 3:26 am
    Mr. Obvious says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m a kleptomaniac, so it is okay if I shoplift because I love to take things that aren’t mine.

  • January 30, 2008 at 5:05 am
    Calif Ex Pat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He plead nolo to three counts – so – he is “responsible’ as a matter of Law and there well could be a penal stretch awaiting him when he is released from the Nut Hut. In California, lots of jailies try to get remanded to the local Loonie Bin for ‘soft time’ but the sentences there are indeterminate so it is possible he could be a guest of the State forever

  • January 30, 2008 at 6:29 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    =) It must be Rare Form Day at the IJ. I have been giggling nonstop since I started reading it today.

    The Guffaw Award definitely goes to “penal stretch”. I don’t know if that was intentionally hilarious, but my inner-junior-high-student can’t stop laughing.

  • January 31, 2008 at 6:24 am
    Maybe TX wants him? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe he should have gone to TX & set fire to a radio station instead?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*