This was form John Macarthur’s Book called THE VANISHING CONSCIENCE. This is a must read.
A man who was shot and paralyzed while committing a burglary in New York recovered damages from the store owner who shot him. His attorney told a jury the man was first of all a victim of society, driven to crime by economic disadvantages. Now the lawyer said, he is a victim of the insensitivity of the man who shot him. Because of that man’s callous disregard of the thief’s plight as a victim, the poor criminal will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He deserves some redress. The jury agreed. The store owner paid a large settlement. Several months later, the same man,while still in a weal chare was caught in another
armed robbery. Bernard Mc Cummings parlayed a similar victimism into wealth. After mugging and brutally beating an elderly New York man in the subway, McCummings parlayed a similar victimism into wealth. After mugging and brutally beating an elderly New York man in the subway, McCummings was shot while fleeing the scene. Permanently paralyzed, he sued and won $4.8 million in compensation from the New York Transit Authority. The man he mugged, a cancer patient, is still paying doctor bills. McCummings, the mugger – whom the courts deemed the greater victim – is now a multimillionaire. In two separate cases in England, a barmaid who stabbed another woman to death in a barroom brawl, and a woman who angrily drove her car into her lover were both acquitted of murder after they clamed acute per-menstrual syndrome (pms) addled their thinking and caused them to act in ways they could not control. Both received therapy rather than punishment. A San Francisco city supervisor claimed he murdered a fellow supervisor and Mayor George Moscone because too much junk food-especially Hostess Twinkies-made him act irrationally. Thus the famous “Twinkie†defense was born. “A lenient jury bought the line and produced a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. They ruled that the junk food resulted in diminished mental capacity, which mitigated the killer’s guilt. He was out of prison before the mayor’s next term would have been complete. Rioting gang members in Los Angeles beat truck driver Reginald Denny almost to death before live television cameras. A jury acquitted them of all but the most minor charges, deciding that they were caught up in the mayhem of the moment and therefore not responsible for their actions. It is theoretically possible today in America to commit the most monstrous crimes and get off scot-free, simploy by blaming some affliction to explain why you are not responsible for what you have done. A drug dealer and cocaine addict from the Bronx was acquitted of murder after killing eight children and two women whom he shot in the head at point-blank range. His crime was the largest mass kill-ing in the New York area since 1949. But jurors decided that drugs and stress were a reasonable explanation for his actions. They said the man had acted under extreme emotional distress and the influence of drugs- so they found him guilty on a lesser charge that brought only a light sentence. But it isn’t only career criminals who are using such excuses to shift blame for their wrongdoing. Millions of people from the top of society to the bottom are using similar tactics to excuse themselves for the evil things they do. Michael Deaver, Ronald Reagan’s deputy chief of staff, pleaded not guilty to perjury, claiming alcoholism and drug use had impaired his memory. He admitted he was secretly drinking up to a quart of scotch a day†while working in the White House. The judge was at least partly swayed by the argument and gave Deaver a suspended sentence.
Richard Berendzen, president of American University in Washington, D.C., was caught making obscene telephone calls to women. Claiming he was a victim of childhood abuse, Berendzen received a suspended sentence and negotiated a million-dollar severance package from the university. He has now written a book about his ordeal in which he explains that the obscene calls were his method of data athering.†The book was given rave reviews in then Washington Post and USA Today.
A man who was shot and paralyzed while committing a burglary in New York recovered damages from the store owner who shot him. His attorney told a jury the man was first of all a victim of society, driven to crime by economic disadvantages. Now the lawyer said, he is a victim of the insensitivity of the man who shot him. Because of that man’s callous disregard of the thief’s plight as a victim, the poor criminal will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He deserves some redress. The jury agreed. The store owner paid a large settlement. Several months later, the same man,while still in a weal chare was caught in another
armed robbery. Bernard Mc Cummings parlayed a similar victimism into wealth. After mugging and brutally beating an elderly New York man in the subway, McCummings parlayed a similar victimism into wealth. After mugging and brutally beating an elderly New York man in the subway, McCummings was shot while fleeing the scene. Permanently paralyzed, he sued and won $4.8 million in compensation from the New York Transit Authority. The man he mugged, a cancer patient, is still paying doctor bills. McCummings, the mugger – whom the courts deemed the greater victim – is now a multimillionaire. In two separate cases in England, a barmaid who stabbed another woman to death in a barroom brawl, and a woman who angrily drove her car into her lover were both acquitted of murder after they clamed acute per-menstrual syndrome (pms) addled their thinking and caused them to act in ways they could not control. Both received therapy rather than punishment. A San Francisco city supervisor claimed he murdered a fellow supervisor and Mayor George Moscone because too much junk food-especially Hostess Twinkies-made him act irrationally. Thus the famous “Twinkie†defense was born. “A lenient jury bought the line and produced a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. They ruled that the junk food resulted in diminished mental capacity, which mitigated the killer’s guilt. He was out of prison before the mayor’s next term would have been complete. Rioting gang members in Los Angeles beat truck driver Reginald Denny almost to death before live television cameras. A jury acquitted them of all but the most minor charges, deciding that they were caught up in the mayhem of the moment and therefore not responsible for their actions. It is theoretically possible today in America to commit the most monstrous crimes and get off scot-free, simploy by blaming some affliction to explain why you are not responsible for what you have done. A drug dealer and cocaine addict from the Bronx was acquitted of murder after killing eight children and two women whom he shot in the head at point-blank range. His crime was the largest mass kill-ing in the New York area since 1949. But jurors decided that drugs and stress were a reasonable explanation for his actions. They said the man had acted under extreme emotional distress and the influence of drugs- so they found him guilty on a lesser charge that brought only a light sentence. But it isn’t only career criminals who are using such excuses to shift blame for their wrongdoing. Millions of people from the top of society to the bottom are using similar tactics to excuse themselves for the evil things they do. Michael Deaver, Ronald Reagan’s deputy chief of staff, pleaded not guilty to perjury, claiming alcoholism and drug use had impaired his memory. He admitted he was secretly drinking up to a quart of scotch a day†while working in the White House. The judge was at least partly swayed by the argument and gave Deaver a suspended sentence.
Richard Berendzen, president of American University in Washington, D.C., was caught making obscene telephone calls to women. Claiming he was a victim of childhood abuse, Berendzen received a suspended sentence and negotiated a million-dollar severance package from the university. He has now written a book about his ordeal in which he explains that the obscene calls were his method of data athering.†The book was given rave reviews in then Washington Post and USA Today.
