Do terrorists have built in insanity pleas?

The legal definition of insanity is the inabillity to distinguish between right and wrong. Given that the muslim terrorists believe tht they go to paradise when they die or kill civlians, in a court of law could a good lawyer get them off on the basis of a distorted ethic? I mean if they dont thng what they do is wrong they obviosly dont have the abillity to distinguish between the two.


Ths is worrisome

Originally posted by mwm1331
The legal definition of insanity is the inabillity to distinguish between right and wrong.

No matter how bad they wanted to get off, I seriously doubt they would attempt to use their religious views as insanity. Basically the defense attorney would have to prove that anyone who believed that was insane for it to work. Whether or not you believe what you are doing is wrong is not the issue, its whether or not you are able to determine was is and is not acceptable behavior. Despite feeling that the murders are "right", they are intelligent enough to understand that seperate of the situation, murder of another person is "wrong." Since the terrorists would be opposed to the murder of those who believe like themselves, they are able to discern between correct and incorrect behavior.

If someone was found guilty of carrying out a terrorist attack, and was also found to be "insane", they'd still be locked up for life I'd imagine.. just in a different kind of institution! It generally happens that way with murderers etc.

I'm not sure if the courts are ready to start seeing extreme religious belief as a sign of insanity yet though..

we have opened pandoras box here, folks. rights? what rights? the people in gitmo dont deserve any rights. heres an idea. lets put them all in orange jump suits, put them on tv and the internet and tell the terrorists, that if our demands are not met (out of america in 2 days, all terrorism stopped,etc.) we will execute them, by beheading. then we can go on tv, read the constitution and CHOP! theres your rights for ya! do onto others as you get done to you on a daily basis...

My question was can any person who views those not of his own faith as non-human be judged sane?

Originally posted by mwm1331
My question was can any person who views those not of his own faith as non-human be judged sane?

By that logic though everyone who intentially commits murder is therefore insane. Our court system is not set up to determine the morality of your decisions but your ability to clearly make them. Insanity as a defense does not rely on your views and beliefs, it relies on your ability to make decisions. A pyschatrist would have to declare the person legally incompetant by reason of insanity, which would never happen on the basis of religious belief. If you are mentally able to plan and execute an attack, you are not incompentant.

Originally posted by mwm1331
The legal definition of insanity is the inabillity to distinguish between right and wrong.

Sorry, but that is incorrect as right and wrong are subjective terms.

insanity
n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the District Attorney or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 72 hours) to be examined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superior/county/district court. A hearing is then held before a judge, with the person in question entitled to legal representation, to determine if she/he should be placed in an institution or special facility. The person ordered institutionalized at the hearing may request a trial to determine sanity. Particularly since the original hearings are often routine with the psychiatric findings accepted by the judge. In criminal cases, a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" will require a trial on the issue of the defendant's insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. In these cases the defendant usually claims "temporary insanity" (crazy then, but okay now). The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong," following the "M'Naughten rule" from 19th century England. Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. A claim by a criminal defendant of his/her insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns. Sex offenders may be found to be sane for all purposes except the compulsive dangerous and/or antisocial behavior. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes.

dictionary.law.com...

Thank you Jonna that was an excellent and informative post and has lessened my concerns.