The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

'Twinkie Defense' revisited with caffeine substitute

gsdx

gsdx

Festina lente
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Posts
57,249
Reaction score
1,622
Points
113
Location
Peterborough Ontario
Anything to get out of taking responsibility for one's actions:

US trial: man claims caffeine insanity

2 hours, 7 minutes ago

By Brett Barrouquere, The Associated Press

NEWPORT, Ky. - A man accused of strangling his wife is poised to claim excessive caffeine from sodas, energy drinks and diet pills left him so mentally unstable he couldn't have knowingly killed his wife, his lawyer has notified a court.

Woody Will Smith, 33, is scheduled for trial starting Monday on a murder charge in the May 2009 death of Amanda Hornsby-Smith, 28.

Defence attorney Shannon Sexton filed notice with the Newport court of plans to argue his client ingested so much caffeine in the days leading up to the killing that it rendered him temporarily insane — unable even to form the intent of committing a crime.

<snip>

Prosecutors, meanwhile, said their own expert may testify there was no evidence Smith had consumed diet pills or energy drinks as he claimed before his wife died.

Prosecutor Michelle Snodgrass said Smith tested negative for amphetamine-type substances shortly after the killing.

Police say Smith used an extension cord to strangle his wife on May 4, 2009, then used the same cord to bind her feet together. Smith then used another cord to tie his wife's hands.

If convicted of murder, Smith could be sentenced to life in prison.
Click to expand...

Full Report: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100920/world/us_caffeine_defense
 
^ Actually, this defence might fly better than an insanity plea for several reasons.

Firstly, insanity pleas are more difficult to prove now that the defence has to prove it. For every professional they bring in to court to prove the defendant is insane, the prosecution can bring in as many professionals to prove that he isn't.

Secondly, the chances are pretty good that the jurors can understand a caffeine buzz better than insanity.
 
I dunno whether even a stupid jury could 'understand' or empathise with this caffeine overload defence (although who would've thought it of the 'Twinkie' case?). Even when I was 23 and struggling at school to get through all my work-load, drinking 20 cups of strong black a day plus trying out the then relatively new-on-the-market (in Oz) No-doze pills and drinking caffeine pop, I would feel really sick in my stomach and be forced to stop drinking caffeine before I ever reached a psycho state of mind. And let's face it, there are as many reasons for a young and emotionally charged teacher to want to kill as any dissatisfied hubby. And yet, I never did it. Caffeine? Really? P'raps I'm too unimaginative and boring...

But empathy lies with commonality and attraction, so all the defence needs is a panel that lives a similar life with similar marital dissatisfaction and which is attracted to the defendant physically. It could fly, indeed, thereby giving everyone the chance to kill their wives after heavy bouts of coffee drinking.
 
sure a jury can "understand" a caffeine buzz.... but they would be galactically fucking stupid to say a caffeine buzz is a valid reason for choking out your wife. what a mockery of the justice system.
 
Elegant-Perverse said:
What does that man do, drink soda with a coffee and diet pill chaser on the hour every hour he's awake?
Click to expand...

attachment.php
 
gsdx said:
^ Actually, this defence might fly better than an insanity plea for several reasons.

Firstly, insanity pleas are more difficult to prove now that the defence has to prove it. For every professional they bring in to court to prove the defendant is insane, the prosecution can bring in as many professionals to prove that he isn't.

Secondly, the chances are pretty good that the jurors can understand a caffeine buzz better than insanity.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but surely the burden of proof in an insanity defense has always been on the defendant.
 
In my 20's and working 18 hour days, I had a 55 cup coffee maker next to me, supplemented with chocolate covered expresso beans and loads of jolt cola. I have no idea why my heart didn't explode, but my mental state was always fine. And we always got the job done to boot. Damn.... why AM I still alive???

What a bullshit defense. Only in the USA.
 
winterknight said:
IANAL, but surely the burden of proof in an insanity defense has always been on the defendant.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. The defence would propose the insanity plea and it was up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that it was actually the Twinkie Defence case (Dan White, who assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk) which flipped this concept and put the burden on the defence to prove insanity instead.
 
gsdx said:
No, it hasn't. The defence would propose the insanity plea and it was up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that it was actually the Twinkie Defence case (Dan White, who assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk) which flipped this concept and put the burden on the defence to prove insanity instead.
Click to expand...

The twinkie defense wasn't an insanity defense. It was a "diminished capacity" defense, which is slightly different (and significantly easier to get).

They simply found that although Dan White loaded his gun with especially lethal hollowpoint ammunition, entered City Hall through a basement window to avoid the metal detectors, got George Moscone into a private room to shoot him, reloaded the gun, and walked from one end of the building to the other (pausing to chat with Diane Feinstein for a few minutes on the way) in order to track down and kill Harvey Milk, he hadn't planned any of it beforehand and so was only guilty of manslaughter.

If he had been found insane - which, even then, the burden would have been on the defense to prove - he would have not been found guilty of anything.

Insanity is an affirmative defense, which means the burden is on the side affirming it.
 
winterknight said:
Insanity is an affirmative defense, which means the burden is on the side affirming it.
Click to expand...

As I said, I may have been mistaken (which I was, apparently), but at one time the burden of proving sanity was on the prosecution. The defence merely had to claim insanity and had to do little else except to sit back and watch the prosecution try to prove otherwise.

It's much more difficult for the defence to prove insanity than it was for the prosecution to prove sanity.
 
gsdx said:
As I said, I may have been mistaken (which I was, apparently), but at one time the burden of proving sanity was on the prosecution. The defence merely had to claim insanity and had to do little else except to sit back and watch the prosecution try to prove otherwise.

It's much more difficult for the defence to prove insanity than it was for the prosecution to prove sanity.
Click to expand...

Do you actually have a direct cite for this?

Because, at least in the UK, the burden has been on the defense since at least M'Naghten in 1843

[quote="The House of Lords, R. v Daniel M'Naghten]the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.[/quote]

The rule in M'Naghten was pretty much universally adopted by the US in subsequent years, so it would surprize me greatly to learn that they adopted the definition but reversed the burden.
 
^ Richard Bucket found it painful, too. He really had athlete's foot, but that wasn't posh enough for Hyacinth. She bound him up in bandages twice the size of his foot and then whacked it with a cane so he would limp.

Ah, the trials and tribulations of keeping up appearances.
 
That's a bunch of bullshit. Before you'd even get to the point of going insane you'd be succumbing to caffeine intoxication first. I can't see someone THAT jittery and twitchy being able to tie anything in a knot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top