The shooting in Arizona on Jan. 8 was one of the most shocking events in recent American history. With six dead, including a federal judge (John Roll) and a 9-year-old girl (Christina-Taylor Green), and Representative Gabrielle Giffords left severely wounded, the public couldn't help but wonder how anyone could commit such a heinous act.
Now, with shooter Jared Lee Loughner in custody and awaiting trial, the question of his mental stability is being raised. Due to Loughner's severe mental troubles, some suggest that he could be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The argument is that Loughner's mental disorder prevented him from being able to properly make moral decisions, and, as a result, it would be unfair to charge him with murder.
It is worth noting that in Arizona, murdering a federal judge warrants an automatic death penalty, so there is far more at stake here than in a state like New York, where capital punishment has been outlawed.
Unfortunately for Loughner, the insanity defense doesn't hold much weight in this case.
In order for someone to be found criminally insane, the defense has to prove that the defendant did not know that his or her actions were wrong as a result of mental instability.
Loughner's past would suggest this is not the case. For one, it is plausible that he held a grudge against Giffords well before the shooting. At a 2007 "Congress in Your Corner" event, he asked Giffords a question about government, and the politician's answer did not satisfy the then-18-year-old Loughner.
That incident would suggest that the attack was premeditated. A crime cannot be defended on the basis of insanity if it was thought out ahead of time. In this case, the evidence strongly suggests that it was.
Beyond that, a run through Loughner's YouTube page shows many videos with political themes, and his list of favorite books includes several titles that promote extremist ideologies, including Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
From this, the most logical conclusion is that Loughner's actions were politically motivated.
Admittedly, Loughner does have a history of unstable behavior. He was kicked out of his community college after acting out on several occasions, and many students who attended class with him say they felt uncomfortable in his presence.
Still, that hardly qualifies as being criminally insane.
While we at The Spectrum understand that Loughner had a troubled past, and he could certainly be considered mentally unstable, we do not believe he fits the requirements for criminal insanity. He may not be the healthiest person in the world, but he clearly knew what he was doing.
We understand that the death penalty is never an easy thing to decide on, which is why it is relevant to bring up the question of Loughner's sanity.
With that said, Loughner's clear political motivations and general ability to function in society prevent the insanity defense from working here. Trying him for murder is simply the only sensible option.
