Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (75366)	9/23/2003 12:50:33 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It depends on how seriously we take your stipulation that he acted "in a fit of madness". If true, he should be off the hook, and committed until past his breakdown. If he is not mad according to a legally recognized definition, he should be charged with voluntary manslaughter. If there is a category specially recognizing emotional duress, he should be charged with that. Vengeance is not recognized as an excuse, and impulsive behavior is not necessarily madness. On the other hand, some have recognized "irresistible impulse" as a temporary mental defect. I would want to hear his testimony.........