Share This Page

Antiquated criterion

| Saturday, Dec. 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The Associated Press news story “ Final Sandy Hook shooting report describes killer's fascination with violence ” tells of Adam Lanza, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter, displaying numerous signs of severe abnormal functioning. The 20-year-old was definitely in need of an inpatient psychiatric setting. However, he was able to fly underneath the mental health system's new radar, so to speak.

After detailing all this bizarre behavior, which would lead any reader to conclude that this kid shouldn't have been on the streets unsupervised, the story then asks why Lanza shot his mother to death and massacred 26 others at the school. Is AP serious?

The legal system still employs what I believe to be an antiquated criterion for assessing insanity in criminal cases — whether the accused knew the difference between right and wrong. It still doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that oftentimes, people can plan despite being crazier than an outhouse rat.

Sam Shutter

Blairsville

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.