An antisocial personality like Jonas Sinardo, who specializes in wandering on the edge of life and death, is relatively rare.

But more importantly, the legal profession has not long considered psychiatry, and the development of psychiatry is an extremely young discipline in human history.

So far, the acceptance of psychiatry has not been high, and the study of psychiatry has often relied on a large number of individual characteristics, and experimental studies such as physical chemistry have been banned because they are too cruel and inhumane.

This slowed down the development of psychiatry. For example, Brooklyn's conclusion on the selective crime of antisocial personality is based on his research and summary of a large number of precedents, and it is not absolutely scientific.

Brooklyn can't be 100 percent sure that his conclusions are correct. Otherwise, how would the existence of Jonas Sinardo be explained?

When it comes to such issues, it is often a headache for judges. They have to be careful to distinguish between those who really have the disease and those who are pretending.

Taking a step back, there has always been controversy in legal circles about whether offenders who are genuinely ill should be punished like normal people.

Because you are sick, you can escape the punishment of the law? Are laws made for human beings, or are they for a class of people?

Should we be treated differently before the law, or should everyone be equal? This topic has long been debated by legal scholars.

Brooklyn is a staunch 'equal to everyone'. But the reality is that the 'non-discriminatory' faction is at a disadvantage.

'The defense of reduced judgment ability' has been included in the scope of legal defense and is a situation that should be considered by the judge.

This is very unfriendly to Brooklyn. …………………… Not satisfied, the nasolabial folds lady continued

"Is antisocial personality disorder innate?"

"The causes of antisocial personality disorder are complex." Experts say

"There are studies that suggest that antisocial personality disorder can be inherited, but there are also studies that show that antisocial personality disorder manifestations are associated with low socioeconomic status and urban environment." The meaning of this sentence is that whether the antisocial personality is born or not has not yet been definitively determined.

"In other words, people with antisocial personality disorder didn't become like this on their own volition, right?" The expert laughed.

"Yes." Brooklyn and Chandler Kane laughed. Of course, of course, no one wants to get sick.

Who gets sick voluntarily?

"My client's antisocial personality disorder was neither born nor voluntary, but rather an environmental or genetic factor that made him who he is." The nasolabial folds began to wrap up, and she said to the jury bench

"At the same time, when committing the criminal act, my client was also deeply troubled by antisocial personality disorder, and his behavior was dominated by emotions, and he was unable to stop his behavior voluntarily."

"Maybe we can understand it another way."

"It's like having a big invisible hand that grabbed my client's arm and forced him to kill the two dead."

"That's right, my client's crime constituted a crime, but such a forced criminal act should not be attributed to my client." Before the Lady of the Rhopards could return to her seat, Chandler Kane stepped forward.

"Who forced him to do this?" Chandler Kane asked directly.

"Who is this big invisible hand? God? Are we going to take God to judgment? ”

"Thief stealing can also be described as uncontrollable because he has a kleptocratic habit."

"The QJ offender who commits QJ can also be said to be uncontrolled because he has an X addiction."

"The murderer can also be said to be uncontrollable, because God or Satan grabs his hand and kills the dead, and he doesn't want to do that."

"All sinful behavior can be described as uncontrolled, because God gave each human being different gifts when He created human beings."

"All prisoners in prison today should be acquitted because their behavior is uncontrolled."

"Or, what kind of behavior is controlled?"

"Please pay attention to what you say." Brooklyn reminded. Ms. Nasolabial Folds' argument sounded more like sophistry, but Chandler Kane's statement didn't fit the bill either.

It was time for questions and it was clear that his statement was not a question of the witnesses, but rather of a question of the accused's lawyer.

The defendant's lawyer is not a witness. Chandler, who was reminded, stopped talking, glanced at Brooklyn, and finished speaking.

"Do the parties still have questions for the witnesses?" Brooklyn asked. Both shook their heads.

"Thank you for your testimony, you can retire." Brooklyn nodded at the witness, watched him leave, and concluded

"The controversy over 'diminishing capacity' has been around for a long time, and it has been debated since it was taken into legal considerations, and I think it will continue to be debated, perhaps ten or twenty years from now, and it may still be inconclusive. The trial focused on whether the criminal conduct of the defendant, Jonas Sinado, should be treated in the same way as ordinary people. ”

"Antisocial personality disorder is not included in the 'diminished capacity' defence, and after hearing the arguments between the experts and both sides, the court found that antisocial personality disorder is not considered for this purpose."

"The follow-up trial asks both sides to put an end to such arguments and focus more on the factual conduct of the case itself, rather than on the unresolved issues in the legal community."

"This is a courtroom, a place where you need a definite outcome, not a law school class or some kind of legal knowledge exchange." After saying that, Brooklyn directly announced the adjournment.

Brooklyn's summary is tantamount to ruling the dispute between the two sides of the two court sessions, directly cutting down the defense strategy of Ms. Nasolabial Folds.

It is no longer possible for a lady with nasolabial folds to defend herself through a 'diminishing' strategy. Without the final card of the 'weakened ability' defense, the trial will return from the battle of theory to the actual situation.

The reality is that Jonas Sinardo did kill someone, the police have ample evidence, and he himself admitted it.

This almost indicates that the defense has no means to defend itself, and the case can now be directly declared closed.

It is even possible to skip the stage of directing the jury to the jury and the collegiate jury and go directly to the stage of reading the verdict.

Ms. Nasolabial folds wanted to do something to salvage the situation. When Brooklyn adjourned the court and sorted out the files and computers to return to the inner court, she stood up and shouted to stop Brooklyn.

Everyone in the auditorium, who had originally gotten up and was about to leave, was also attracted by her shouting. The camera reopened the lens cover, the reporter took out the notebook from his arms, and everyone sat back down.

Brooklyn was waiting for computers to shut down — the court's money was too poor to equip everyone with a high-end computer, so he had to pick the most cost-effective model for purchase.

As a result, they can do almost nothing but the office. Last week, a judge was kicked out of the system because the computer crashed because the trial was so boring that he played the system's own card game in the courtroom, and the system almost lost the record of the trial.

"Judge Brooklyn, you are depriving us of the right to defend ourselves." The lady of the nasolabial folds said loudly with some gaffe

"It's not fair to my client!"

"What do you want to argue about?" Brooklyn asked

"In my courtroom, take up my time, and repeatedly educate everyone about the pros and cons of 'weakened defense'?"

The legal scholars have so far been inconclusive on this. We've tried to incorporate the 'diminished defense' into the system, but we've caused more trouble. ”

"According to statistics, at least more than 100 defendants had questionable 'weakened defenses' last year."

"In Clark v. Arizona, defendant Clark attempted to present some psychiatric evidence that he did not know, nor intentionally committed the act of murdering a law enforcement officer, thereby negating the prosecution's evidence that he had first-degree murder intent."

"The Arizona court ultimately ruled that the defendant could not deny the intent on the basis of psychiatric evidence."

The case was later appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court, after deliberation, made a final decision that the defendant has the right to adduce evidence in his or her favor that denies his guilt, including evidence that the defendant is mentally ill and incapable of forming guilt. The defendant has the right to request the fact-determining judge to consider his mental illness and his testimony of his capacity for criminal responsibility. However, the right to present such evidence may be restricted for other justifications. For example, the trial judge may exclude the admissibility of this evidence on the basis of specific factors such as unfair bias, confusion about the issue, and potential misleading jury. The Federal Supreme Court held that, subject to due process, the courts may exclude expert testimony from psychiatrists that the defendant's mental insanity prevented him from forming a particular state of mind or from forming an inability to commit a crime. ”

"This precedent has been recognized by legal scholars as a standard template for the contemporary judicial system's treatment of 'weakened defenses'. This precedent has also become a classic precedent followed by most judges. ”

"Now, in accordance with the guidance of the Supreme Court, I will rule on the point of contention between the two sides - whether the defendant meets the defense standard of diminished capacity."

"The previous two hearings were a demonstration of the defendant's right to present evidence in his favor and to deny his guilt, and now my decision to refuse to admit it is to exclude the defendant's insanity from forming the testimony of the guilty intent, provided that it does not violate due process."

"Also, Ms. Silvia, this is not a classroom, and I am not your mentor, so I have no obligation to teach you legal knowledge and precedents, and I don't want to reaffirm the authority of judges again, this is the last time."

"I will write to the Bar Association and suggest that they re-examine your bar license and the documents you have practiced. From standing in my courtroom to now, you have not shown the slightest bit of professionalism. ”

"A lawyer is not something that can be done by virtue of eloquence and sophistry alone. In fact, I know a lot of good lawyers, but they are not very eloquent. They are made by professionalism and legal knowledge, not sophistry. Brooklyn directly brought out the classic precedents of the legal community and told Ms. Nasolabial Folds to shut up completely.

Just at this time, the computer was turned off, and Brooklyn picked up the computer and asked

"Any questions?" Seeing that the lady of the nasolabial folds froze in place, Brooklyn nodded and got up to leave.

She didn't even know of such a classic precedent as Clark v. Arizona, which set a new low bar on what Brooklyn knew about lawyers.

At the same time, it also made Brooklyn even more disoptimistic about the bar association. This kind of goods can get a lawyer's license to practice, how does the lawyers association check it?

Brooklyn believes that even Wood Webster, the former boss and mascot of the New York District Attorney's Office, knows that Harvard Law School freshmen should have heard of this precedent, but anyone who has worked at a large law firm should be familiar with it.

Because the 'weakened ability defense' is so easy to use and is the first choice for many defendants to get away with their crimes, the lawyer will take out this precedent and throw it in the client's face, telling him that it is not so simple to use the 'weakened ability defense'.

In fact, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Clark v. Arizona has not changed the confusion of the legal scholars about the 'weakened capacity defense', and this precedent is more about freeing the judge's hands and leaving the decision on whether to use the 'weakened capacity defense' in the hands of the judge.

It is up to the judge to decide whether or not to adopt it. This undoubtedly increases the voice of judges. Judges are free to decide on their own preferences without being constrained by constitutional requirements or caught up in the 'yes or no' confusion.

However, judges often do not use this precedent to refute it, because when they do, it may cast a shadow of 'injustice' over the case.

In particular, the junior judges, who do not know whether they will continue to appeal if the defendant loses the case, do not agree with them.

Once the defendant appeals and the appellate judge's preference is not the same as that of the junior judge, there will be a situation where the junior judge refuses to adopt the 'diminished defence' and the defendant loses the case, but the appellate judge adopts the 'diminished defence' after appeal and the defendant wins the case.

The appeal and reversal of the verdict is a great blow to the majesty of the judges at the grassroots level. Unless the plaintiff appeals again and the Supreme Court rules in line with the junior judges, there will be suspicions that the junior judges have 'unjust bias' in their rulings.

Serious cases may even be complained about and investigated by the Judicial Conduct Commission. This is also one of the reasons why judges still want to climb up, and they are all hearing cases.

Standing at a higher level, you will have a greater right to speak, have more room for error, and act more freely.

Brooklyn was upset that she had used this classic precedent that judges would not easily use because of her nasolabial folds.

The first thing he did when he returned to the inner court was to make good on his promise – to write a letter to the Bar Association. In the letter, he directly listed the unprofessionalism of Ms. Nasolabial Folds, including her attempt to prove the innocence of all criminals, the fact that the law should treat different people differently, and the fact that he was unaware of the classic precedent of Clark v. Arizona.

Brooklyn explicitly asked the Bar Association to re-examine the process by which Ms. Nasolabial Folds obtained a lawyer's license and the documents for her practice, and requested that Ms. Nasolabial Folds be disqualified.

Finally, Brooklyn expressed his concern that the bar association would allow such unprofessional people to practice as lawyers.

Anyway, because of the matter of Lai Li Crewe, he has long unilaterally looked at the Bar Association unpleasantly, but he doesn't have to worry about anything.