Eddie Ray Routh Found Guilty

rugcat said:

Routh seems to me to be more mentally disturbed then vicious, calculating, or devoid of remorse.

Click to expand...

Quite likely true, but in terms of the justice system, largely irrelevant. Do you want a cannon this loose let back out in public?

One of the huge problems in this nation is that we really need to incarcerate people who do the kinds of things Routh did, but have absolutely no means of dealing with the mental illnesses that they take with them into prisons. Prisons and jails are filled with mentally ill people. This is not conjecture. Numerous criminal defense attorneys have told me this, directly. No sane attorney wants to be forced into an "insanity defense" situation, because they all know that's . . . insane. It's one of the major reasons defense attorneys hate to put defendants on the witness stand. They know that most defendants will not have the mental/emotional capacity to withstand prosecutorial cross-examination.

Routh will now spend the rest of his life in a Texas prison hellhole. He's lucky, in that state, that he's not awaiting the needle in the Huntsville Prison. But it's hard to see any lesser sentence as appropriate, considering what he unquestionably did.

caw

rugcat said:

I'm not saying he was not responsible for what he did. But he'd been in VA hospital several times and apparently was diagnosed as psychotic. I really don't see him as the same as some teenager who kills someone over a real or imagined slight. I think this guy had long-standing serious mental issues. I tend to agree with this. Aside from the famous cases like that of people like Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer there are criminals who will rob someone, then shoot them in the head just because they feel like it, and go out for pizza afterwords with a total lack of remorse or even interest. How can that be a normal person?

I think this is why some religions, like the Catholic Church, believe in the concept of evil. There's something missing about what makes people human in these people.

But I think they're different than people who are totally screwed up in the head, whether they are technically insane or not. Routh seems to me to be more mentally disturbed then vicious, calculating, or devoid of remorse.

Of course, trying to figure out exactly what was in his mind is completely irrelevant to his victims.

Click to expand...

Even Bundy and Dahmer were not alike, though their crimes were. Bundy was remorseless; Dahmer was arguably not, though he couldn't or didn't stop himself from doing what he did and kept up a normal facade while doing it.

Bundy fought his charges, his sentence, etc. Dahmer did not.

blacbird said:

Quite likely true, but in terms of the justice system, largely irrelevant. Do you want a cannon this loose let back out in public?

One of the huge problems in this nation is that we really need to incarcerate people who do the kinds of things Routh did, but have absolutely no means of dealing with the mental illnesses that they take with them into prisons. Prisons and jails are filled with mentally ill people. This is not conjecture. Numerous criminal defense attorneys have told me this, directly. No sane attorney wants to be forced into an "insanity defense" situation, because they all know that's . . . insane. It's one of the major reasons defense attorneys hate to put defendants on the witness stand. They know that most defendants will not have the mental/emotional capacity to withstand prosecutorial cross-examination.

Routh will now spend the rest of his life in a Texas prison hellhole. He's lucky, in that state, that he's awaiting on the needle in the Huntsville Prison. But it's hard to see any lesser sentence as appropriate, considering what he unquestionably did.

caw

Click to expand...

Again, an insanity ruling doesn't mean out on the street, at all.

Routh isn't going to be executed, is he? I thought I heard life without, though I only heard it in passing.

CrastersBabies said:

Yeah, I told my husband this evening that there was no way he'd get an insanity plea through. In Texas. For killing a man who called Routh "nuts."

I had three guys sitting behind me in the theater when I saw the movie (it was extra credit for a film class, else I wouldn't have gone). They were talking before the film about being from Texas.

And throughout the film, they were clapping hard and saying things like, "Kill that M*F* sand-N***er, KYLE. KILL HIM! Goddamned ARABS. F*** them. TAKE HIM OUT."

And the scene with the kid, they cheered.

I'm sure the defense found a few jury members, but I can only imagine that some of the above-mentioned types might have also made it on the jury.

Click to expand...

Back when the remake of Lord of the Flies came out...what late 80's...I was horrified when the theater erupted in cheers when Piggy was killed. Reminds me of your story...

cornflake said:

The insanity defense is, by it's nature, an affirmative defense. There's not innocent by reason of insanity - it's guilty by reason of insanity.

Click to expand...

Jurisdictions matter.

There's "not guilty by reason of insanity," there's "guilty but insane," there's "guilty but mentally ill," maybe some others. I'm not sure.

Mostly though, it's the first.

Diana Hignutt said:

Back when the remake of Lord of the Flies came out...what late 80's...I was horrified when the theater erupted in cheers when Piggy was killed. Reminds me of your story...

Click to expand...

wow, that's nuts. I live in the quintessential swing-state, in a swing-town that has equal parts democrats (college town) and agricultural types (farmers and whatnot). So, most of the time, you can avoid the zealots. But sometimes, it sneaks up on you.

I had a similar response when I went to see Platoon. Someone was yelling, "Kill that g***" and was eventually escorted out.

On the the failure of the insanity defense: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...kyles-killer-why-the-insanity-defense-failed/

Texas makes clear the distinction between the two in its legal standard: “It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.”

[snip]

While Routh was questioned by Texas authorities, a ranger asked him, “You know what you did today is wrong, right?”

Routh replied, “Yes, sir.”

Click to expand...

That was the end of it, right there.

blacbird said:

Quite likely true, but in terms of the justice system, largely irrelevant. Do you want a cannon this loose let back out in public?

One of the huge problems in this nation is that we really need to incarcerate people who do the kinds of things Routh did, but have absolutely no means of dealing with the mental illnesses that they take with them into prisons. Prisons and jails are filled with mentally ill people. This is not conjecture. Numerous criminal defense attorneys have told me this, directly. No sane attorney wants to be forced into an "insanity defense" situation, because they all know that's . . . insane. It's one of the major reasons defense attorneys hate to put defendants on the witness stand. They know that most defendants will not have the mental/emotional capacity to withstand prosecutorial cross-examination.

Routh will now spend the rest of his life in a Texas prison hellhole. He's lucky, in that state, that he's awaiting on the needle in the Huntsville Prison. But it's hard to see any lesser sentence as appropriate, considering what he unquestionably did.

caw

Click to expand...

This. There really should be special facilities for mentally ill criminals who may never recover sufficiently to be released, but who still need and can benefit from treatment. (Too bad everyone seems to escape from Arkham Asylum... )

I'm glad he's not going to get the death penalty.

He seems to be a seriously disturbed person, but more killing isn't going to make things right.

CWatts said:

This. There really should be special facilities for mentally ill criminals who may never recover sufficiently to be released, but who still need and can benefit from treatment.

Click to expand...

That's called "Capitol Hill," I believe...



/fill-in for Don

As a nation we have been lead into a state of accepting mentally ill people being shunted out onto the street rather than foot the bill for protecting them, and us, from the insane incidents we regularly see in the papers and on TV (with much too much 24/7 intensity).
Mental illness, is tough to define, let alone treat, but there are too many cases where the problem is recognized and treatment denied. I know of one family who tried to get their son institutionalized (or whatever could be done) but were denied help, by unaffordable pysch help and law enforcement, until he killed someone.
Someday we'll get back the right track, with signicant modification to the concept of throwing the insane into cells (padded or otherwise).
Right now I don't see the leadership to get us there, but it will evolve, probably already is in development.

As to this case, I don't know how much warning there was. He was an illegal drug user which probably was both an indicator and a contributor regarding his problem. Whatever, it was not seen, seen as normal, or ignored. Hell, he was shooting guns in a recovery program.
He might not be the only insane person involved in this tragedy.

As a Viet Nam vet (Navy) I knew people who were not in close combat, though we were shooting guns, who had trouble dealing with the effects of war. Back then we didn't call it PTSD. Those who had it were often advised to 'just drink', resulting in a lot of bad conduct discharges. Maybe things haven't changed as much as we think they have, even with all of the programs out there trying to help.

Mental Illness =/= Insane. Apparently, the jury felt the defendant knew right from wrong (he "confessed" to that when questioned by police fwiw) at the time of the event. That doesn't mean he wasn't "mentally ill." I believe that sort of diminished capacity" should be an element of a punishment phase at the very least. There was no second phase here. His mental illness was the reason they didn't seek the death or penalty, but a second phase might have resulted in less than life without parole (his sentence). I say "might" because I wasn't in the court room hearing the evidence, including demeanor evidence of witnesses.

I have a mental illness (bipolar type 1) by way of disclosure. Except during two manic episodes (both with psychotic features) I have always known right from wrong.

I don't like that the prosecution tried to diminish the defendant's mental illness saying it was the cause of the defendant's mood disorder. Co-morbid substance abuse and mental illness is common place, closer to the rule than the exception.

I don't think he should be free, but he doesn't belong in prison, either.

He needs help that he isn't going to get.

dfwtinman said:

Mental Illness =/= Insane. Apparently, the jury felt the defendant knew right from wrong (he "confessed" to that when questioned by police fwiw) at the time of the event. That doesn't mean he wasn't "mentally ill." I believe that sort of diminished capacity" should be an element of a punishment phase at the very least. There was no second phase here. His mental illness was the reason they didn't seek the death or penalty, but a second phase might have resulted in less than life without parole (his sentence). I say "might" because I wasn't in the court room hearing the evidence, including demeanor evidence of witnesses.

Click to expand...

I've seen some confusion on the sentence in this case, so thought I'd chuck in a word on how it works in Texas.

If the prosecution brings a capital murder charge and the defendant is found guilty, there are two options only: life without parole, or death. When the prosecutor waives the death penalty, a guilty verdict automatically results in a life sentence.

Normally, after any kind of guilty verdict, there is a punishment phase where mitigating evidence can be put on. Not so with capital murder, a guilty = life and that's that.

MarkEsq said:

I've seen some confusion on the sentence in this case, so thought I'd chuck in a word on how it works in Texas.

If the prosecution brings a capital murder charge and the defendant is found guilty, there are two options only: life without parole, or death. When the prosecutor waives the death penalty, a guilty verdict automatically results in a life sentence.

Normally, after any kind of guilty verdict, there is a punishment phase where mitigating evidence can be put on. Not so with capital murder, a guilty = life and that's that.

Click to expand...

How about appeals? Might that change the outcome?

MarkEsq said:

I've seen some confusion on the sentence in this case, so thought I'd chuck in a word on how it works in Texas.

If the prosecution brings a capital murder charge and the defendant is found guilty, there are two options only: life without parole, or death. When the prosecutor waives the death penalty, a guilty verdict automatically results in a life sentence.

Normally, after any kind of guilty verdict, there is a punishment phase where mitigating evidence can be put on. Not so with capital murder, a guilty = life and that's that.

Click to expand...

Good point. Following the coverage I knew the sentence was automatic. I meant to say "had there been a second phase" (had the law been different)

Haggis said:

How about appeals? Might that change the outcome?

Click to expand...

In that it might undo the conviction yes, but that would put the case back to square one. A reversal might encourage the prosecutor to seek a 'regular' life sentence, and drop the capital. Highly dependent on the facts, of course. An appeal court can't really reduce a capital murder like this to a 'regular' murder. Well, they could but they'd have to find that one of the victims was murdered and the other wasn't... can't see that happening!

robeiae said:

Jurisdictions matter.

There's "not guilty by reason of insanity," there's "guilty but insane," there's "guilty but mentally ill," maybe some others. I'm not sure.

Mostly though, it's the first.

Click to expand...

It is always an affirmative defense, wording aside.

CWatts said:

This. There really should be special facilities for mentally ill criminals who may never recover sufficiently to be released, but who still need and can benefit from treatment. (Too bad everyone seems to escape from Arkham Asylum... )

Click to expand...

There are - they're psychiatric hospitals. This is where we place people who are deemed insane but who are not applicable candidates for release, those who are found incompetent to stand trial (until or if they're returned to competency), etc.