You need clarity. VDH illuminates the vocabulary of untruth.
28 July, 2006
Insane
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” has always bothered me. “Guilty, with mitigated punishment by reason of insanity” would make more sense. Mona Charen agrees, and points out who else was guilty in the gut-wrenching case of Andrea Yates.
Two juries have had to decide to what degree Andrea Yates was responsible for her behavior. But no juries have ever been asked to consider Rusty’s guilt. The word negligent doesn’t even begin to describe his malfeasance. How is it possible that a man who knows his wife’s sanity has been compromised by childbirth can nonetheless impregnate her five more times (she miscarried once)?
How could he leave her alone when he knew she was, at the very least, suicidal — and when her failure to care for the children (and feeding is pretty elemental) revealed a clear case of endangering the welfare of a child? What was he thinking when he urged Andrea to home school all four of their children (the fifth came later) in the converted school bus they were living in?
Apparently I’m not the only one
who is expecting a White Rabbit to scamper by any minute. Charles Krauthammer asks the logical question about the “disproportionate response”, in What Moral Universe?
What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?
What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?
