Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarian
Not responsible... really? I am of the understanding that his defense was that drinking redbull made him temporarily insane. Wether the red bull made him insane or not (doubt it), had he been drinking alcohol instead before killing his father, he certainly would have been held responsible for it. How does this change the situation?
|
If I'm understanding things correcrtly - he's claiming the sleep deprivation made him temporaily insane - the sleep deptrivation was brought on by the Red Bull. I think a switch from "Red Bull" to "meth", "crack", or any other illegal stimulant is a more appropriate comparison, but the conclusion that he would be held responsible remains.
Could this set a scary precedent that crimes performed while in a chemically altered mental state are done so while temporarily insane? 
__________________
"The dignity of man is not shattered in a single blow, but slowly softened, bent, and eventually neutered. Men are seldom forced to act, but are constantly restrained from acting. Such power does not destroy outright, but prevents genuine existence. It does not tyrannize immediately, but it dampens, weakens, and ultimately suffocates, until the entire population is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid, uninspired animals, of which the government is shepherd." - Alexis de Tocqueville
|