Red Bull killer freed on temporarity insanity

[Realitycheck]

This case was quite perplexing, especially due to the fact that two specialists for the plaintiffs completely agreed with two specialists for the defendant. Obviously, there are lots of facts about the case that I don't know about, but its pretty hard to see justice being done here without a more detailed explanation. Has anybody seen any really moving pertinent information?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you have a link to articles about the case? I'm not familiar with it.

[Realitycheck]

http://www. Edited June 9, 2011 by Realitycheck

[npbreakthrough]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/159654/20110608/red-bull-killer-stephen-coffeen.htm

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/159654/20110608/red-bull-killer-stephen-coffeen.htm

[PhDwannabe]

So, as is often the case with these things, you really hear nothing about the details of the defense. This reminds me quite a bit of the famous "Twinkie Defense" of Dan White. Defense is making a case that he was out of it enough at the time of the killings that he couldn't rationally premeditate murder, and a pattern of behavior is described to help materially establish his mental deterioration--one of the details is that this really fit guy was suddenly wolfing down Twinkies. Some defense expert makes an offhand comment about how goofy dietary changes can affect mental states, and suddenly the press absolutely loses their pants over it. It makes a great story about our doomed world for the slobbering, enraged La-Z-Boy dweller, who really just wants a good daily reason to shout at his TV screen. Hell in a handbasket, I say!

 

Now, again, I don't know the details of the defense here. But I smell a lot of context here that isn't being related well. "Red Bull made him crazy" doesn't sound to me like a plausible defense, and I think the lawyer is probably laying out a more sophisticated chain of reasoning than that, as in the Dan White case. That's my informed guess.

[Realitycheck]

The defense attorney states that the killing was caused by a combination of things, "but the Red Bull is the one that is sexiest.

The caffein had an impact on other things."

 

Interesting how the judge states that "this case has never been about Red Bull."

 

So I wonder how they could be so clearly disagreeing about the Red Bull, yet be so in agreement on the verdict.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Marat]

The case almost looks like a joke, given the similarity of the defendant's name, 'Coffeen,' to 'caffeine,' which is the substance in Red Bull that would make him act strangely.

 

The basic rule in criminal law is that you can't be found guilty of a true crime (more than a regulatory offense) unless there are two elements -- the actus reus (you actually did the act that matches the definition of the crime) and the mens rea (you had the requisite mental state to intend the act and to be responsible for it in the legal sense). The legal sense of sanity, which is a test used to determine whether the criminal was responsible for his criminal act so that he can be punished, in most jurisdictions comes from the old McNaughton Committee's 1842 definition stating that you must "know the nature and quality of your act and know that it is wrong." So if you kill your wife in a stupor because you think she is trying to murder you with a knife, when in fact she is just offering you a spoon, you are not guilty because your act, as you understood it in your delusional state, was an innocent act of self-defense, which does not provide criminal intent.

 

In this case it seems that the judge is referring to the language of the McNaughton test, so the court must have determined that the accused was acting under the influence of the right kind of delusion.

 

For intermediate cases where the accused is just befuddled by the influence of alcohol or some stimulant like Red Bull but is not delusional, usually the law will say that in killing someone the defendant didn't have sufficient mental capacity to form the 'specific intent' to bump his mental intention up to the high level of clarity required to constitute the required mental state to be guilty of murder. The killing is then defined as manslaughter, since manslaughter does not require 'specific intent,' but only 'general intent' for conviction. The distinction between specific and general intent crimes is arbitrary, since it is not evident that your intention has to be any more specific to murder someone rather than just to commit manslaughter, but this labeling device is used to recognize that drunks are less responsible for their actions than normal people, but still not as free of responsibility as insane persons.

[random]

Sounds like the murderer likely got off on a Caffeine psychosis defense, which is an actual condition but the amounts to induce it are enormous, in criminal law "he who has the swiftest lawyer and enough money wins"

It's all about proving BEYOND reasonable doubt, in order to be convicted. In civil law there is more leeway. probably most likely can be enough to be found guilty but not in criminal law, In criminal law the prosecution needs to be solid in there case.

[Marat]

That raises another interesting point, which is that even if the criminal in this case is convicted on the reduced charge of manslaughter or is found not guilty by reason of insanity, there is still the option of the relatives of the person killed bringing a civil suit against the criminal for the damage he inflicted on the family in terms of loss of financial support or companionship. Since this is only a civil suit for a tort, the standard of proof for the complainant is only proof on the balance of probabilities (i.e., just slightly higher than 50-50), so winning is easier. This is the strategy that was successfully pursued by the relatives of the person O. J. Simpson was tried for killing, after he was found not guilty in the criminal case.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Marat