Quote
waterfield
Well-I'm not sure of what Rath allegedly did. If he is alleged to have fondled the woman its impossible to imagine he had no control over his actions because he was under the influence of something.
You recall the so-called twinkie defense in the murder of San Francisco mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk by Dan White. In actuality the consumption of sugar based twinkies was not uses as a defense to the murders but as a sign of White's depression and thus he had a diminished capacity to form the intent to murder-much like mentally disabled killer. He eventually was convicted of manslaughter and not murder 1 or 2-quite a victory for White. Precisely because of that case the law has tightened around these so called "defenses" based on diminished capacity.
[
www.bing.com]
The twinkie defense turned on exonerating a guy by allowing the jury enough manufactured reasonable doubt to appease their own homophobic views.
And yes it became manslaughter where intent is not the same kind of issue it is with murder.
BUT with Rath, there is no lesser degree of crime here--or as I understand it, there is no lesser degree of crime here like the difference between murder 1 and 2 and manslaughter.
His intent is everything in this case. Intent is everything in the written law on this. And if they can get in some reasonable doubt level questions into what his intent was, that's going to be their defense.
Now whether it will work or what I think of it are different issues. I am just trying to describe what I take to be the logic of his defense.
...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2019 11:45AM by zn.
