Public Behaviour

Thank you, nheilbrun, for joining me in debating this proposition. First, you offer the following definition of 'circumstance' - 'a condition, fact, or event accompanying, conditioning, or determining another.." I will agree to the following limiting amendment to the definition: "...or determining Ms. Langrall's behavior during the incident of her arrest. There must be an actual connection between the condition, fact, or event cited and relied upon by you and the specific person, Ms. Langrall. Second, regarding your definition of 'excuse' - "to serve as excuse for, justify..", I contend that it is insufficient. Rather, we should use a legal dictionary such as http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... . Here are the relevant definitions: excuse [ik-'skyï¿½s] 1: "excusal" 2 a: a circumstance that allows for release under the law from an obligation, duty, or contractual liability (compare act of god force majeure fortuitous event impossibility of performance) b: a circumstance (as a physical threat) that grants immunity for otherwise tortious or criminal conduct (compare justification privilege) justification ['jes-te-fe-'ka-shen] 1: the act or an instance of justifying 2: something that justifies specif : a legally sufficient reason or cause (as self-defense) for an act that would otherwise be criminal or tortious 3: the affirmative defense of having a legally sufficient justification (compare excuse) In light of the above definitions, I contend that you must cite something relating to Ms. Langrall that is sufficient under the law to relieve her from criminal liability. Next I will respond to Con's Contentions: Contention 1. Psychiatric Disability... The fact, per se, that a defendant suffered from a mental illness or defect does not automatically excuse the defendant from responsibility for his or her actions that are alleged to be criminal. Rather, the defendant must offer sufficient proof of the mental illness or defect and its relation to the alleged criminal behavior before the judge or jury decides that he or she is relieved from responsibility for the alleged crime. Here is the relevant Pennsylvania law from PAJUR CRIMLAW 4.13 AND 4.14: Legal insanity is grounds for complete acquittal in Pennsylvania.[FN1] The verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" means that the defendant did commit the act, but because of his mental illness he cannot be legally responsible.[FN2] In other words, a defense of insanity acknowledges commission of the act by the defendant, while maintaining the absence of legal culpability.[FN3] The test of legal insanity is not whether the defendant was mentally ill from a medical viewpoint,[FN4] but whether the defendant knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong.[FN5] Illustrations: The court did not err in its instruction to the jury regarding mental illness when it defined legal insanity as requiring that the actor was either incapable of knowing what he was doing or incapable of judging that it was wrong.[FN6] Also, testimony which suggested that the defendant purposefully committed the criminal acts in a secluded spot, that he purposefully fled from the scene when a car approached, that he attempted to destroy evidence and to disguise his appearance, and that he knew that he had killed someone, and that it was wrong to do so, was sufficient to rebut the defendant's insanity defense.[FN7] The insanity defense, as it has developed in Pennsylvania, is more than a layman's approximation of the degree of mental soundness necessary to possess the requisite mental state for the commission of the crime.[FN8] Rather, it is a societal judgment as to the minimal mental capacity that must be possessed by the actor to be held criminally responsible for his acts.[FN9] CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT ï¿½ 4:14. Motive; distinctions West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Criminal Law 47 to 51 The fact that mental disturbance provides the motive for criminal conduct does not, by itself, entitle the perpetrator to an acquittal by reason of insanity.[FN1] Examination of the motive for a crime will rarely reveal that the perpetrator is in the best of mental health.[FN2] A history of mental illness also does not settle the issues of competency and insanity.[FN3] Nor is the incomprehensibility or bizarreness of someone's behavior determinative of his legal sanity or competency to stand trial.[FN4] Thus, Con's argument ("Because mental illness can lead to irrational behavior, i.e. that of throwing a "urine -soaked sweatshirt on cop", this is a condition that justifies Ms. Langrall's behavior." is (a) insufficient as a condition, and (2) insufficient in law. Contention 2. Crooked cops, Drug Addiction, and the Desire for revenge. Con's argument is pure speculation and conjecture. His inference of revenge is not based on any actual fact regarding the arresting officers. Thus, the claim that the police officers arrested her based from a motive of revenge cannot serve as a circumstance JUSTIFYING Langrall's behavior. Contention 3. Unpredictability of the "Damned Human Race" Con makes and relies upon an argument from authority. The authority is an essay by Mark Twain, the specific aspect being, "the irrationality defined by Twain's in depth thesis." First, the argument from authority in this instance is fallacious. http://en.wikipedia.org... . Con uses a claim (his in depth thesis) by Twain as a circumstance of Ms. Langrall when there is no evidence of any connection between the two. I look forward to the next round of arguments. Tom