Crazy in court

The defendent needs to be incarcerated for the duration of his life. I believe that he may have features of a mental disorder, but then many of us do within certain boundaries and possibly during stressful events. Moreover, some may even have suicidal and/or homicidal ideations during stressful events. However, they don't carry them out. The defendent appears controlling and possibly a sociopath and some of those people are either free or incarcerated. I"ve observered his non-verbal behavior during clips of his statements and his behavior in court. I see him as a murderer who is trying to dupe the public. His has addiction disorder(s), which need treatment. I believe that he will kill again, if he's found not guilty by reason of insanity. Finally, I think that the court has heard enough from him to make a determination about this case.

Jamie. You're absolutely right about the whole insanity defense. Of course Dahmer was crazy to eat people. Why was he put out in general population to be killed by other inmates? And Andrea Yates was also insane to drown her babies. But then again, we have our Scott Peterson's, (insane or evil?).

We walk a fine line in the criminal defense category. What about Darren Mack? Was he driven to temporary insanity because of the injustice in the system? This is a question that can only be answered by a jury of our peers. Which is why we have trials.

JMO and my last word.

Howdy!
my family is filled mental illness. my dad was a gun fanatic who suffered PTSD! Many Military Veterans return home and have to forget
the battlefield. Sometimes this transition is made sometimes it's not!
My Montana and Texas relatives settle things with with guns. It's a fact of life in the the USA!
Trudy in AL

Today Co-anchor Ashleigh Banfield posed the question to Jack Ford about how much the Jury is informed about the outcome of an insane verdict. To summarize what she said... 'do they think that the person charged is going to walk out the door?' Mr Ford responded by saying something like 'the courts don't even know exactly what is going to happen because it is up to the doctors, however he will not just walk out and say bye and go to dinner' or something like that.
My comment is....Everyone knows he killed a person and injured two others there is no question about it. He is guilty of doing the act – period. Why can't he just be diagnosed by Certified Doctors first, (not jury members). If the Medical athuorities deem him insane he then goes to the proper facility with security and gets treatment. I believe he should be diagnosed first by medical perfessionals. If sane then have the trial for the punishment or rather decision of which charge he is guilty of...1st Degree or assualt with intent to kill? (That second charge was confusing to me too, thank you Ms Banfield for asking the questions you did today)
Very Respectfully,
Chris

I think THE JURY KNOWS BEST!!!

well even if Anthony Lacalamita is legally insane i say he is guilty in the first degree and he should go to prison for life without parole

I agree with you Jamie. We are in the infant stage of understanding mental illness, and those who have not been touched by it cannot believe it can drive a person to do unspeakable works, it must be EVIL. A relative of mine, is bipolar, and I take care of her, and there is mental illness in my family. I have seen delusional thinking & criminal behavior, so I am more enlightened. I do not know it all, but yes public enlarged, there is an illness that can make a person do awful things, and I hope you never have to see your loved one have it.
Thank You Jamie,
Ruthie

I don't believe this person is crazy, just evil. He tried committing suicide just to get attention. He lied on a form to get a gun because he knew it was right to fill it out wrong, so in my opinion he knows right from wrong. He returned a week later and murdered, he is just plain guilty.

Jamie

I think that you would defend the devil himself ,if he were to be revealed. I haven't once, since I've been watching Court TV or In session heard a guilty verdict opinion from you. Everyone is innocent in your eyes, no matter how compelling the evidence,or heinous the crime toward innocent people. You're always on the side of the defendant. There is a thin line between being a defense attorney and disagreeing for the sake of going against the grain! Some of your beliefs should not be voiced in some cases, it has to be very hurtful to the families of these innocent victims.

In the case of Lacalamita,he lied to get a gun, thereby showing he knew right from wrong, making him sane and guilty of premeditated murder....
Ed in Connecticut

I do believe that Mr. Lacalamita is insane. However, does he deserve or is it safe for him to be a part of the law abiding society? I do not think so. He did walk into a public buidling with a shot gun. He did assault people. He did kill someone. As a Michigan resident who doesnt live but a stones throw from where this incident took place, I wouldnt want to see him in my community.

He should be released but supervised somewhat for life.

As the mother of a 24-year old son diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and a long-time CourtTV and trial watcher, in my opinion "legal" insanity doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with the reality of serious mental illnesses or what most of us would consider "insanity" in any other definition of the word.

~Daisy

IF YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU SHOULD DO THE TIME. I WAS INSANE WHEN I KILLED THEM, BUT IM NOT INSANE NOW. THAT IS B-S. YOU JUST DO NOT CHANGE MENTAL ISSUES WITHIN MINS OF EACH OTHER. LOCK THEM UP AND DO ON TO THEM AS THEY DONE TO OTHERS

ANTHONEY IS CRAZY. SKIZO-EFFECTIVE IS REAL,I HAVE SEEN IT ON FOUR QCASSIONS WITH A FRIEND OF MINE! FOR 4 DAYS AT A TIME I SAW HIM IN A PSYCOTIC STATE WHARE HE HAD NO IDEA WHERE HE WAS OR WHAT HE WAS DOING...... HE IS MENTALLY ILL AND NEEDS TO BE IN A MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY WHERE HE CAN GET THE HELP HE NEEDS. MAYBE FOR LIFE, BUT THE PRISON SYSTEM WILL KILL HIM!!!!!

JOHN

that guy was not insane at the time of the murder and injuries. he should be accountable for his actions.

Anthony Lacalamita's case is one I can identify with because my husband has been diagnosed as being bipolar. Thankfully, he has not committed a crime such as Mr. Lacalamita but he didhave to deal with self inflicted injuries. Until the doctors prescribed the appropriate meds to deal with his condition he had horrific mood swings. I think it is clear the defendant has had mental issues to deal with but I am not convinced he was insane when he went on the shooting spree. The only good thing that has come out of these trials is mental illness cases are once again brought to the forefront. It is really difficult to feel empathy for this defendant, however, when you see a mother and grandmother's family in such pain regardless of his mental state.

I do feel an immense amount of sympathy for people with bipolar disorder and I'm extremely glad that medications exist to help these people live more normal lives. However, when they begin feeling better they often stop taking the meds and they are back out among society with their demons in full force. I am supportive of the guilty verdict in this case but I do wish there was a place where these people could be locked up for the long term that would be separate from the prisons that house the garden variety violent criminal element.

Legally insane? Just a legal way to dodge responsibility, and therefore face no consequences for your actions.

A recent case points out the silliness of the innocent by reason of insanity defense . The man who chose to buy a shotgun and shot up his place of business killing one and wonding two.

If this man was found to be innocent could he have sued for his job back? Could he have sued for wrongful terminiation?

Lets try people not on what they say their mental condition is or was but on what damage they did. I personally don't want to ever see a person who killed once because they were mentally ill back out on the streets.

I'm skeptical at the best of times when 12 people decide the fate of a defendant. Especially with the ever increasing technical data required to analyze. I'm really uneasy when a jury has to decide whether a defendant is legally insane. Most often doctors will disagree. And we expect 12 ordinary people to determine whether a defendant has a mental illness or knew right from wrong. Any number of psychosis can be concluded and any number of defendants are ignorant to their own mental illness. The illness itself might cause the defendant himself to believe any wrongdoing in the eyes of others was an act that was righteous....The burden of proof is also put upon the defendant.......which defies the laws of justice.
I hope there are changes to interpretations of 'legally insane' definitions.

In my opinion Anthony Lacalamita is a disturbed individual. I consider him to be a coward. After all of the so called suicide attempts why didn't he take his own life. He seems to ba a very callice person