Will Kassab

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@knittynattie Personal opinion - you mean your bias?

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace I see that distinction - when I learned mens rea and general insanity defense, they’re interrelated. The concept of the insanity defense being the person doesn’t have the requisite mental culpability (mens rea) to punish them for a crime.

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace Reading back over where we began, I don’t actually think we’re saying anything meaningfully different - I categorize the defense of lack of criminal responsibility under the broad concept of mens rea - the defendant’s mental state. You’re viewing mens rea more narrowly.

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace You seem to be constraining mens rea to the “intent,” “knowingly,” or “negligence” of the defendant in the act itself- for example mens rea is limited to did LC intend to strangle her kids and did she intend the result - death. Then viewing criminal responsibility as a separately

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace https://t.co/MelDSbe6Hn

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace “ordinary mental state for the offense” is doing a lot of work here, and is technically correct - but that’s not how the term mens rea is understood. Yes, the ordinary mental state of “intent” is captured by mens rea, but so too is “awareness of wrongful nature of their actions.”

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@xQwirk I think the point is criticism of people saying she just needed a more supportive husband. Is Psychosis really preventable by marrying a good father?

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@DYERPrepCarePC @TheRemnantView Worst case scenario

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace The reason we don’t convict sleep walkers of crimes, is because they’re not criminally responsible for their actions, because they can’t form the criminal intent. But we also better be damn sure the person was actually sleeping walking.

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace Now contrast that with someone who kills someone while they’re sleeping walking (look it up). They deliberately killed the person, it wasn’t an accident or recklessness-but they’re not guilty of a crime because they couldn’t form the criminal intent mens rea to commit a crime-

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace You may be conflating criminal responsibility with culpability/gravity of the offense, which goes to the punishment, and not whether a defendant is guilty of the crime. That’s why there are degrees and different categories of offenses

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace I’m unaware of any scenario in crim. law where the state proves the defendant did the criminal act and proves the defendant intentionally did the criminal act, but then there’s a third consideration of “criminal responsibility” that’s distinct from mens rea and actus reus.

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace She didn’t have the intent (mens rea) because she (allegedly) was experiencing psychosis and unable to distinguish right from wrong/control her own actions - thus she’s basically saying she didn’t intend (mens rea) to kill her kids, and thus, did not commit a crime.

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace The reason a person can be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility is that the person lacked the mental state (mens rea) necessary to convict them of committing the crime. LC’s defense is she didn’t commit a crime, because she didn’t have the criminal intent

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@MarvelWarRoom @NancyMace No, that’s inaccurate. You’re trying to make a distinction between mental state and criminal responsibility, but the concepts are inexorable. If the CW can prove LC intended (the mens rea) to kill her kids, then she’s criminally responsible.

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@JodeneWeber @GraigMurphy Conversely, where the trial is about whether LC could know right from wrong when she killed her kids-testimony that she was contemplating an afterlife and saying “go with God” is arguably probative of whether she knew what she was doing. That could be admissible despite R610

[Will Kassab @KassabWill]

@JodeneWeber @GraigMurphy My understanding is the judge’s concern is that testimony about LC knowing it was a mortal sin is being ised to attack LC’s credibility as to her mental state at the time she killed her kids. It’s unclear to me whether that actually violates R610.