This story is interesting. In a high-profile crime, Levi Aron murdered 8 year old boy Leiby Kletzky.
There is overwhelming evidence that Levi Aron did it. The boy's remains were in his apartment. He confessed to police.
Levi Aron's lawyers are preparing an "insanity defense".
The "insanity defense" is stupid. Everyone is responsible for what they do.
However, the "insanity defense" plays a role in the justice system farce. It gives defense lawyers something to do. In a case like this, the defense lawyers can't argue "The police got the wrong guy!" That would be too obviously silly. The "insanity defense" lets the defense lawyers pretend they're advocating on behalf of their client.
Of course, you don't need a corrupt legal system biased against defendants in a criminal trial like this one. A "guilty" verdict would be fair.
This bit was interesting:
Levi Aron, 35, had trouble making eye contact and clammed up when confronted with uncomfortable questions, his lawyers said Monday.As I mentioned in "Two Kinds Of Psychopaths", Levi Aron is an "abused productive" person who couldn't fit in. He is not a psychopath in the sense of Bernard Madoff.
An intelligent "abused productive" person would get a decent job and otherwise fit in somewhat. Levi Aron had the "abused productive" personality type *AND* wasn't that smart.
Most people who commit violent crime have the "abused productive" personality type. They couldn't fit in and turned to violent crime. A parasite can usually get what he wants by emotionally manipulating people. Even a weak parasite will find a weak "abused productive" person to manipulate and control.
In this case, I suspect Levi Aron had some kind of suppressed homosexual desire. That's why he focused on a little boy. Based on my observations, homosexuality is a mental illness.
The mainstream media is downplaying "Levi Aron sexually molested the boy!" aspect of the story. The mainstream media is promoting homosexuality. That aspect of this murder can't be mentioned.
If you want a good example of "homosexuality is a mental illness", look at Jose Antonio Vargas on Thursday, July 14th's Colbert Report. If you look carefully, you can see that his facial gestures are the mirror image of a typical man. People who are "abused productive" and homosexual bottoms tend to have inverted polarity, compared to a typical straight person.
(Compared to before, I'm able to notice subtle tiny asymmetries in people's faces. These asymmetries are an indication of personality type. It was a shocking thing to suddenly start noticing this. That's probably why people with a "mental illness" are frightened when they watch TV. They're noticing things they didn't notice before.)
The "insanity defense" is stupid. Everyone is responsible for what they do. It was very traumatic for me to discover that almost everything I knew was a lie. I never murdered anyone or hurt anyone, even though I had a panic attack.
The "insanity defense" gives defense lawyers something to do. In a case like this one, the defense lawyers can't argue "The police got the wrong guy!" A lawyer who said that would obviously be a fool. There's too much evidence.
The "insanity defense" gives State-appointed defense lawyers the opportunity to do something on behalf of their client.
The "insanity defense" is an evil fnord. It gives defense lawyers something to do, when their client obviously totally did it. The "insanity defense" helps preserve the illusion of a fair trial.
"Not guilty by reason of insanity" is still a loss for the defendant. The only difference is that you go to a mental hospital prison instead of a regular prison. In fact, the regular prison may be better. In the mental hospital prison, you're forcibly drugged.
Also, if you're in a regular prison, you might have already been eligible for parole or served your whole sentence, while you're still in the mental hospital prison ruled "not mentally competent". "Not guilty by reason of insanity" can lead to a longer sentence than regular guilty, because there's no parole or release if you're not mentally competent.
There's another stupid aspect for State murder trials. If the defendant totally obviously did it, why not have a trial right away? When guilt is totally obvious, why not have a rapid trial and execution? Why pay the cost of keeping the criminal alive in prison? (Given a corrupt "justice" system, delays are necessary to preserve the illusion of fairness. In an honest justice system, cases like this could be disposed with a rapid trial and execution.)
Also, the police are portrayed as heroes, solving the crime. With State police, the police don't take action until after a crime. The police don't have an obligation to determine "Levi Aron seems disturbed. Let's help him and keep an eye on him." State police have no obligation to prevent crime; they merely clean up afterwards.
In the present, police have only two choices. They can kidnap someone or do nothing. In a fairer system, there would be more intermediate levels of help. In a free market police system, police would have an obligation to identify potential troublemakers. They would prevent crime and help potential criminals, without stealing their freedom.
(Here's how that would work in a really free market. Whoever Levi Aron purchased police protection from, would have an obligation to evaluate him and make sure he didn't commit any crimes. People would be very reluctant to deal with someone who didn't have "crime insurance". When Levi Aron tried to buy "crime insurance", they would have noticed something wrong with him and helped him, before he committed a serious crime.)
In a really free market with sane police, they could be more active at preventing crime. In the present, everyone is crazy, especially the police. That makes it hard for police to identify emotionally disturbed people, when the police are also insane. Also, State law doesn't provide for active preventative police work. State police are more focused on punishment and cleaning up afterwards, rather than actively preventing crime.
It is possible to identify "abused productive" people who are close to breaking. In the present, everyone is a little crazy, making that hard. In the present, the State doesn't encourage preventative police work.
With a "monkey number" of 200, and 0.5% of the people working as police, it would be possible for one policeman to personally know everyone. That would enable police to identify and prevent Levi Aron. In the present, this isn't feasible, due to the State and because everyone is a little crazy.
That's one problem with the modern Police State. There isn't a personal relationship between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting. Police have much more of an "us vs. them" mentality. With free market police, there would be more of a personal relationship.
It may seem like I'm making two contradictory arguments. They aren't. First, I'm saying that Levi Aron is responsible for what he did, mental illness or not. Second, I'm saying that police should have a more active obligation to prevent crime and identify potential troublemakers, without taking away their freedom. Those two ideas don't contradict each other.
This crime probably could have been prevented, if Levi Aron got appropriate help ahead of time. In the present, that's difficult, because the police themselves are insane.
The "insanity defense" is stupid. Everyone is responsible for what they do. The "insanity defense" gives defense lawyers something to do. The "insanity defense" enables a farce of an impartial trial, even though the defendant is obviously totally guilty.
Also, in this case, the murderer Levi Aron may have some suppressed homosexual desires, due to his choice of an 8 year old boy victim. He probably sexually molested the boy before murdering him. The mainstream media can't mention that aspect of the story, because the mainstream media wants to promote homosexuality.