Breaking: Army psychiatrist convicted of murder for Fort Hood shooting, now eligible for death

[branford]

32. I believe it is very fair to ask what evidence the poster possesses,

considering this case has been under public scrutiny for years and the trial has just concluded. I'm not asking her expert legal opinion concerning obscure legal procedural minutia, only that she cite something available in the vast public record to support her contentions. Lawyer or not, providing evidence to support your assertions is the bedrock of effective civil discussion and debate.

You appear to be making many assertions based upon your own preconceived notions about Hassan, as do we all. First, Hassan was in fact evaluated as to whether he was fit to stand trial. He is welcome to raise the issue on appeal.

And why, exactly, would the fact that he was a trained psychiatrist weigh against his being fit to stand trial. Similarly, how does his desire to represent himself, admit his actions during his defense and not object to punishment, demonstrate his inability to stand trial. Blatant stupidity, or a belief in jihad or any other justification for one's crimes, does not necessarily prove one is legally insane or unfit to stand trial. Someone can easily be outrageously foolish and/or sufficiently righteous/sanctimonious enough to believe their actions were justified, yet still fully appreciate what they have done, its implications and potential punishment. If Hassan wished to represent himself, he had a fool for a client. However, it is not prima facie evidence of legal insanity. The trial judge meticulously ensured that Hassan knew the pitfalls of representing himself, was satisfied that he understood the implications, and even appointed a shadow defense counsel to protect his interests. You may believe that Hassan was unfit to stand trial or so insane as to be protected from criminal liability, but numerous doctors, the judge and the jury quite obviously disagree.

You apparently object generally to the standards and procedures that the criminal justice system, with some minor variations among different jurisdictions, uses when dealing with those who are mentally ill or whose conduct is so outrageous that you and others seem to impute such illness. You are most certainly free to have any views you wish, and advocate for a different system or result, but most jurists and the general public believe the system is fair. If anything, there are objections that too many protections are provided to these monsters, both those who are mentally ill and those who are just cruel sociopaths.

If you believe the case of Nidal Hassan will change the standards used to determine whether a defendant is fit to stand trial or is criminally responsible for their actions, well . . , good luck to you.

What your post was most notable lacking is any demonstration that Hassan did not received due process under the law, that his potential punishments do not fit his crimes, or evidence of his remorse sufficient to justify leniency or the opportunity for rehabilitation. Those issues are certainly worthy of discussion.

Your appear to equate agreeing with your assertions and opinions as "thinking like a lawyer." I've practiced long enough to know that you better have facts and evidence to back-up your opinions, and that hope and sanctimony very rarely win the day in court. If you are an attorney, or involved with the legal system, as you seem to imply, your criticism that I was "idiotic" for requesting that the prior poster provide evidence to support her contentions even after the conclusion of Hassan's trial, is most bewildering.