| In our system, "not guilty" should mean "we couldn't absolutely prove (s)he did it. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" still sounds like not guilty, so how can we deprive the defendant of his/her rights and property under due process if they're not guilty?
The way I believe it should be set up, Andrea Yates would be considered "guilty". She did exactly what the prosecution says she did, and the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. That record should be attached to her life; she did do what she was accused of doing. That her sentence should be purely rehabilitative IMHO is a matter of sentencing. Hellfire, at this point we would need to get rid of the idiotic minimum sentence for crimes; isn't that why we have judges and a jury system? To make the sentence fit the (circumstances of the) crime?
Oh, well . . . as I pointed out elsewhere, this is the kind of conversation which could be endless. Like religion, politics and philosophy there are probably as many opinions as there are sentient beings on the planet. |
