Posted by Shoshana/AZ on 8/7/12 8:35pm
Msg #429728

I don't get it!

We notaries would never notarize the sig of someone who was obviously "under the influence". Yet, Jared Loughner was permitted to change his plea even though he was "under the influence" of anti- psychotic drugs.

Reply by jba/fl on 8/7/12 8:55pm
Msg #429731

Sometimes fate twists in the right direction. n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/8/12 5:49am
Msg #429762

Re: I don't get it!...read this

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13163448-jared-loughner-pleads-guilty-to-tucson-shootings-avoids-death-penalty?lite

He's been under treatment and on medication since the shootings, and the judge decided he's now competent to enter a plea. I, personally think the deal is best for all around - life in prison, waive right to appeal, no money from selling story, and restitution to the victims of $19m. And avoid a lengthy trial at major expense to the state and federal gov't.

Again, our laws - everyone is entitled to a defense - which is why I hate criminal defense work.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/9/12 11:48pm
Msg #429980

Unless you were just kidding, I think you're getting confused by the "under the influence" wording. As I understand it, in a person with a mental disorder (e.g. schizophrenia, bi-polar disorders, even ADHD, etc.), drugs, when used appropriately, have the exact opposite affect than drugs used inappropriately by a "normal" person. Put another way, a mentally ill person under the influence of the right medication(s) might then be able to function normally. Without the drug, their disorder might be in control. The same drug given to a healthy person might have them acting impaired - what we usually think of when referring to someone "under the influence".