I asked a few questions on the other thread that you answered here. I was wondering if she was trying to get committe to a hospital instead of prison. That is why LKN kept saying she was mentally ill.
I did not know where AZ puts those declared 'ill'. I figure she thought she would go to a hospital, maybe stay there for sme time and be let free instead of going to prison...or try and escape.
Thank you for the answer.
Does anyone have a link to where we get to see Juan?
Sure would be great to see the look on JA's face when Nurmi says she's mentally ill!!
Thanks!
AZlawyer,
by the way, is an insanity plea and a mentally ill plea one and the same?
Here are the distinctions:
1. INSANE: This is a big deal. This means you don't know right from wrong. Thus you obviously don't deny your crime, because you don't know it's a problem. You instead, e.g., call your husband and say, "Hey, I drowned the kids to please God FYI." You will not be sent to prison. You will go to a very well-secured mental hospital, probably for life. JA clearly does not fall within this category and no one has ever suggested she does.
2. INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL: This is not as bad as insane. This means you don't really understand what's going on and therefore can't help your lawyer figure out a defense. You will be "rehabilitated" if possible so you can help. If you can't be rehabilitated, you will probably end up in a normal-security mental hospital. JA clearly does not fall within this category and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever suggested she does.
3. MENTALLY ILL: This covers a lot of ground. As applicable to the JA case, it includes personality disorders that make you react less reasonably to situations than a more mentally balanced person would react. This can be addressed in mitigation but is irrelevant to guilt vs. innocence. JA is clearly mentally ill. She reacts oddly to situations based on something in her brain that is just not normal. The extent or exact type(s) of her mental illness are up for discussion.
I have a question for AzLawyer as well or anyone else that might know the answer. In Dutch court the role of the judge is completely different than in the US. He or she gets to ask the witnesses questions, demand an investigation etc. It's a very active and investigative role and the judge is not limited by what is presented to him or her by the defense or prosecution.
Now when it comes to this case, can JSS take things into consideration that havent been presented to her by the defense or the prosecution? Can she use what she herself has observed when coming to a decision? For example Jodi claiming to have a big fear of the media yet being on twitter?
First of all, the judge will not be making any final decisions in this case unless the jury says "life"--then JSS will decide between life with the possibility of parole or without the possibility of parole.
When she's making decisions on, e.g., motions, she can consider whatever's presented by the parties and whatever she herself has observed happening in the courtroom. She can also ask questions of lawyers and witnesses (although when the jury's there that's often a bad idea because it tends to give the jury the impression that the judge is on one side or another, which can affect their deliberations). She can't go off and investigate things herself.
