The Criminal's Justice System...

Defense Files Not-Guilty Insanity Plea In Fatal Pharmacy Shooting
12-15-2006 10:46 AM

(Jacksonville, FL) -- The woman charged with murder in the shooting death of a mother of two at the Shands Jacksonville Hospital pharmacy pleaded not guilty yesterday. Last month, 46-year-old Brenda Joyce Coney admitted to police that she shot 37-year-old pharmacy clerk Shannon McCants several times. There were many witnesses as the room was crowded with clients. Homicide investigators say the shooting was premeditated. They say it was the result of a confrontation between Coney and McCants that happened days before when Coney got out of a line of customers and tried to cut back in. Coney's attorney announced yesterday he is mounting an insanity defense. He says a court psychologist examined Corey and found her not competent to be prosecuted. The state attorney's office will have their own psychologist examine her. Coney's stepmother says the defendant has a history of mental problems and was on medication.

Just the fact...that this kind of gargabe is allowed, is a slap in the face to ALL potential victims.

My solution is to keep her on the medication so she can take the 'conviction and death penalty' much easier....:nutkick:
OMO

ret

Quote:

---

Brenda Joyce Coney admitted to police that she shot 37-year-old pharmacy clerk Shannon McCants several times

---

That's more than good enough for me! QED.

I do not buy the insanity plea I am afraid - rarely if ever - it is used as a cop-out. Culpability remains unchanged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by retsupt99

My solution is to keep her on the medication so she can take the 'conviction and death penalty' much easier....:nutkick:
OMO

ret

---

Or just up her meds by about 50 times and let the meds "work" one final time.

The insanity defense is not even used in 1% of all cases. It usually is not very successful. I am not sure which rule FL uses to determine insanity, but the M'Naghten rule is still used in a lot of cases, here is the basis of the rule:
A person is legally insane if "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

So just a history of mental problems and medications is sufficient, the defense has to prove that she meet those standards, or some equivalent depending on the state, at the time of the crime, in order for it to count.

Not competent to stand trial is something else completely, and that is determined by whether or not the defendant is able to understand the charges against them and help in their defense.

Insanity in general is a loser defense, which is why it is used so seldom. She will have to remain in a mental health facitily until competent, then have the trial, then if found not guilty by insanity, spend time in the mental health facility until she can prove she is sane, which takes a very substantial amount of time, for many crimes more time than the sentence would have been (not so in a death penalty situation, but Florida has a temporary maratorium on death sentences right now anyways). Insanity defense isn't the cake walk that tv usually shows.

Just another example of trying not the hold someone responsible for their actions.

The laywers know that "pleading insanity" rarely works, but the clients are always stupid enough to fall for it, thus making the lawyers more money.

The laywers dont care if they win or lose. They still get paid one way or the other. They have nothing to lose by dragging out a case that is hopeless.

Just another way to get out of dying on the table with a needle in your arm...