Insane people are regularly convicted of crimes


According to the law, if someone is adjudged insane, then they are incompetent to stand trial.  It’s called the “insanity plea.”  But the law does not require every indicted person to be tested for mental competence on the front end!  No, sir, that’s too expensive and money rules.

18 U.S. Code Sec. 17 – Insanity defense
(a)Affirmative Defense.—
It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
(b)Burden of Proof.—
The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

Carefully note that the law requires the defendant to prove mental competence.  The state has no burden of proof to determine if the accused is competent to stand trial before actually proceeding to trial.

The courts presume you are sane
which is a breach of each defendant’s
5th Amendment right to due process.

A court’s presumption of anything is treason because it precludes presentation of factual evidence in utter violation of every citizen’s natural rights.  In other words, you are sane until you prove you are insane.  You have to raise the issue.  If you don’t, then they automatically try you as if you are sane.  When has an insane person ever claimed to be insane?

The burden of proof shifts
from the prosecution to the defendant.

“A hearing shall be had on the issue of the defendant’s responsibility if it is requested by either party or the court.”  Hawaii Revised Statutes Sec. 704 – 408.

But we know the court or the prosecution rarely if ever request a hearing.  In fact, the defendant’s attorney rarely requests a hearing!  Front end consideration of whether the defendant is competent to stand trial is completely ignored unless someone else raises the issue.  Who?  Relatives as well as defendants generally don’t even think of raising the issue of traumatic brain injury so, essentially, the defendant is stripped of his rights before he even gets to trial.  It’s a no-win situation because he is presumed to be sane when 25% to 87% of the time, research has revealed he is, in fact, insane.

This fact actually reveals insane behavior
by the criminal-justice [sic] system
that serves political motives.

I know a retarded bank robber in the Hawaiian islands.  He was my landlord’s son.  When he was 17-years-old he was a passenger in a car that went off a cliff.  A metal rod pierced his skull and his neck was broken.  My regular contact with him before he went to prison revealed to me that I was dealing with a 17-year-old boy stuck in a 43-year-old man’s body.  Everyone knew him as “slightly touched,” but harmless as a fly.  He always used a water pistol during robberies, and prior to his most recent escapade for which he is now serving time, he told me about his bank robberies in Nevada and how he got caught.  It was clear to me by the expressions on his face and the words he chose that he was really playing cops and robbers.  For him, it was no different than Second Life, which he takes seriously.

The above quote from commentary included in the Hawaii Revised Statutes fails to note that anyone can intervene in any civil or criminal case as a matter of justice.  But I knew this, so I contacted the bank robber’s attorney and held a conference with him, informing him that I will intervene if his client is not tested for mental capacity.

In the meantime, my research revealed
a substantial number of convicts in the USA
are brain damaged!

Media has propagandized the topic by pushing the false narrative that it is practically impossible to win an insanity plea.  This may be true when no physical brain damage is involved, but this is not true when the defendant has brain damage.  Vermont prisoners are regularly released because traumatic brain injury provides proof they are incompetent to stand trial, as evidenced in this article:

Why Brain Injured Defendants in Vermont Often Go Free

. . . a 2006 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called Traumatic Brain Injury: A Guide for Criminal Justice Professionals.  That report indicates that between 25 and 87 percent of all prison inmates nationwide reported a head injury or TBI, as compared to just 8.5 percent of the general population.

Considering these incredible statistics, it is a miscarriage of justice to try anyone indicted without first testing their sanity according to law, particularly when traumatic brain injury exists.  According to these statistics, they are more likely insane than not!

Unfortunately, this travesty of justice regularly occurs because traumatic brain injury is rarely questioned on the front end.  Instead, mentally ill people are expected to request testing for an insanity defense.  TBI victims don’t even have the wherewithal to mention they have a brain injury!  The unlikelihood of a defendant claiming insanity is exacerbated by the media propaganda that it is practically impossible to win an insanity defense, which most lawyers believe.  This is not true in the case of traumatic brain injury because the evidence is physical and the behavior caused by the physical injuries is documented and therefore provable.


Apparently a system of incarceration to punish with no rehabilitation is cruel and unusual punishment of brain-damaged people and is a violation of the 8th Amendment.  Therefore, privately owned prisons are not the solution to problems caused by brain-damaged people.  Clearly, these people are in need of mental health care!  Yes, their freedom needs to be restricted because they are in fact insane, but not in a for-profit prison that in no way treats their physical and mental conditions but, rather, provides higher education in crime through association with more skilled criminals.  The cruel and unusual punishment of prison for sick people only guarantees more insane conduct upon release.  But that’s a good thing when you are in the prison business.

I don’t have the answer, but that does not mean the solution does not exist.  It does, but it will not be discovered and implemented until we first recognize that as much as 80% of convicts are in fact insane and not competent to stand trial.  Only then will the necessary brainstorming occur that will produce the necessary solutions.

My bank robber friend is currently undergoing psychological and physical testing because of my intervention.  His lawyer only understood plea bargaining before I contacted him.  Hopefully, he now knows to ask all new clients on the front end whether they have ever suffered a head injury.  Word of mouth is the best advertising.  I’m sure his phone will be ringing off his desk when he starts doing this, and then he won’t even have time to do public defender work for the court anymore.

Knowing the system, they will do everything they can to rationalize my friend’s brain damage away because a private corporate prison system is a for-profit business, and insanity pleas are not good for the bottom line, which we all know is more important to a corporation than human life itself.  My friend may be found mentally incompetent and he may not, despite the fact that everyone knows he is retarded from his injuries as a teenager.  After all, it’s based on someone’s subjective opinion in the end result; an opinion that can manipulate reading the results of physical testing, a manipulation that serves the bottom line for those who worship the Almighty Buck.  Of course, they will tell you it’s objective if they want to make sure most brain-damaged defendants go to or remain in prison.

Lawyers for the most part lack the ethics to question TBI on the front end with every criminal client.  The bar association requiring 15 hours of ethics training each year cannot cause a person to be ethical.  Too often, lawyers are more concerned with saving the court money than the best interests of their clients because not aggravating the court is job security, especially when the lawyer is court appointed, which means the court pays his fees and not the client.  So that’s the state of criminal justice in America today.  Unless you have the wherewithal to bring up the fact that you have traumatic brain injury, which a brain injured person generally does not, then the joke is on you.


The evidence presented supports the notion that
the words “criminal attorney” are redundant.


For more free speech that you need to hear go to: