What would Dan White Do?
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdimcapacity.html<snip>
It all started on November 27, 1978 in San Francisco. Dan White, an ex-policeman who had recently resigned as city supervisor, climbed in the basement window of City Hall to avoid
metal detectors, walked upstairs to the office of mayor George Moscone and demanded his supervisor job back. When Moscone refused, White shot him twice at close range, then stood
over the body and put two more bullets into the mayor's brain to finish him off. Then he reloaded, went down the hall, and killed Harvey Milk, a popular supervisor who was also
America's first openly gay public office holder, shooting him five times.
At trial, White's lawyer argued that he was suffering from "diminished capacity," a controversial defense then permissible in California courts. White supposedly was suffering from
depression and thus incapable of premeditated murder. As evidence of this, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that the formerly health-conscious White had recently become a junk food
junkie. Blinder commented that too much sugar can affect the chemical balance in the brain and worsen depression, but didn't blame the crime on bad diet. Rather, he offered junk food
use as proof of White's mental state--in other words, Twinkie consumption was an effect rather than the cause of White's problems. But the media and public immediately--and
misleadingly--dubbed the defense's argument the "Twinkie defense."
Whatever they called it, it worked. The jury found White guilty of a lesser charge, voluntary manslaughter. White was sentenced to six years in prison rather than life as many expected.
The gay community and others were outraged, and rioting broke out in San Francisco. Largely in response to this case, California voters in 1982 overwhelmingly approved a
proposition to abolish the "diminished capacity" defense. Dan White, for his part, served his time in prison, was paroled in 1985 and committed suicide a few months later.
"Diminished capacity" is different from "not guilty by reason of insanity." The insanity verdict, which has been an accepted part of English common law for centuries, is rendered in
cases where the defendant is clearly bereft of his reason, hears voices, etc., and so can't be held responsible for his actions. Typically the defendant is committed to a mental institution
after trial. In contrast, "diminished capacity" results in the defendant being convicted of a lesser offense. A person with diminished capacity is sane and understands the consequences of
his actions, but supposedly doesn't possess the mental state required to premeditate a crime.
<more>