Guilty as Charged

I am not sitting on the jury that is empaneled to hear the case against the man accused of killing Chris Kyle, the soldier whose story is the subject of the American Sniper movie.  Not being on the jury, I can't make an informed opinion on the guilt or innocence of the shooter.  Doesn't matter, though, does it?

The trial is not about guilt or innocence, per se.  Rather, the jury is determining the sanity of the killer, Eddie Ray Routh, at the time of the shooting.  In essence -- and here is the problem -- they are making a judgment, based on the evidence and testimony before them, which will result in one of two outcomes, either:
(1) The killer will be found guilty and go to prison for whatever period the process determines, likely for life
(2) The killer will be found "not guilty by reason of insanity"

The problem with the latter is that, in the eyes of the law of the State of Texas and, assumedly every other state and the District of Columbia, he is no longer subject to punishment for the crime for which he was charged, nor can he be re-tried for it at a later time due to the constitutional protection from double jeopardy.

Routh's legal status, if found insane at the time of the shooting, is that he cannot be punished.  He can be assigned by the judge to an institution for treatment to protect himself and the public, but it is not of the legal standing of "punishment."  So if at a future time, which could be tomorrow, Routh could be determined by the institution and competent medical authorities to be no longer insane and, therefore, subject to release.

Is this in the best interest of the USA?  I absolutely think not.  A crime was committed, whether or not the criminal was sane at the time, and the treatment of that criminal needs to be kept under the jurisdiction of the court.

Therefore, I propose that the states start to consider a different outcome.  I'd like to see one state amend its penal code to create a new verdict as an option for judges and juries to consider:  "Guilty by reason of insanity."  A finding of Guilty by Reason of Insanity is appropriate when a crime is committed and the finding is that the offender was insane at the time of the crime.  The sentencing would provide for a period of time within which the offender is put in the penal system, even if it is all served in a mental institution.

What is the difference?  Very simple -- the criminal under that verdict has a record, a finding of guilt and, most importantly, their handling is under the penal system of the state.  No doctor can free a convicted murderer without going to court, because "freeing" a convicted prisoner under that verdict is the purview of the courts and penal system, and the prisoner remains under the system until end of the period determined at sentencing.

That sentence may include institutionalization, prison time, work release, house arrest, parole -- all the avenues available to the court.  But it is a sentence that must be served.

I believe that it is in the best interest of the USA, the victims of crime and the criminals themselves to have this avenue of the new verdict available.  It's so reasonable that I'm sure someone has considered it.  Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea.

It's the sane approach.

Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton