Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "JCS - Criminal Psychology" channel.

  1. Perhaps someone could help. I'm confused about the second case study. My wife and I were talking about it, and she brought up a good point. To be determined legally insane, doesn't there typically have to be an element of unawareness due to mental deficiency of the implications or wrongness of one's actions that led to the crime (e.g. that the perpetrator didn't think what he was doing was wrong or would not be capable of understanding the outcome)? Are the laws regarding this in this particular state different or was it a misinterpretation/mistake by the jury? Perhaps there were other circumstances we weren't made privy to in this video. The man, however, seemed fully connected to reality and have a complete understanding of the implications of his actions.
    1