University of Alabama Killer Amy Bishop Just Plain Crazy?

Recently on Associated Content, I wrote a couple of articles about University of Alabama professor Amy Bishop, who killed and wounded several of her faculty peers when she didn't get the highly sought tenured position she wanted. Amy Bishop's in jail now and we won't be hearing from her, unless she's truly crazy, as her lawyer maintains.

If we were to hear directly from her, then I'd truly believe that she was clinically insane. If ever there's a defendant the lawyers should keep away from the jury box, it's Bishop. But Bishop will strictly follow the advice of her lawyers. In that clichéd phrase of old Cagney gangster movies, Amy Bishop has "clammed up."

That doesn't mean we won't be hearing of her. However, all of whatever is/was/will be said by Bishop must be filtered and refined by her lawyers. Harken back to those old detective movies where lawyers are referred to as "mouthpieces." This case applies the term literally. The case will become a duel between different experts of the mental health establishment.

You may already know that the original concept of the insanity defense comes from a part of British law that is called the "McNaughton Rule." McNaughton was the nutty guy who, in 1843, tried to kill a British Prime Minister.

Instead of killing the Prime Minister, McNaughton shot the Minister's secretary in the back, and the poor man died several days later. The English court was asked to set down a set of guidelines determining whether an offender's elevator went all the way to the top floor. The British are very good at law, and most of American law is adapted from the English system, as were the McNaughton guidelines.

To anyone crazy enough to commit murder, it would be well to remind them that they should not do it in certain states. Montana, Utah, and Idaho will laugh out loud if your lawyers try to plead the insanity defense. The legal practitioners in those states believe that you might be as crazy as a loony-bird but you will still know that killing someone is wrong. In other words, those states do not allow an insanity defense.

Keep in mind that an "insanity defense" is essentially a "not guilty" plea-actually N.G.R.I., or Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. An ABC news story explains simplistically that Bishop's lawyer will have to prove that Amy Bishop "lacked the capacity to know right from wrong." The reality is a bit more complicated, especially now that many states have revised their laws in reaction to the notorious "Twinkie Defense." The notorious "Twinkie Defense" case involved defendant Dan White, who killed Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone of San Francisco. White drew an 8 year sentence for the two murders because he was juiced on sweets which raised his blood sugar levels to maniacal heights.

According to the ABC story, Amy Bishop's court appointed attorney, Roy W. Miller, is intent on characterizing Bishop as a paranoid schizophrenic. This is perhaps the best strategy for a woman defendant who long ago fired three shots at her brother, one of them killing him. Though Bishop was not prosecuted in that case, ruled an accident, that event could be characterized as an emotional break which feeds into Miller's insanity defense.

Miller told news reporters that Amy Bishop does not remember shooting the victims and does not believe they are dead. Miller characterizes Bishop as a paranoid-schizophrenic, a broad category of mental illness with a wide range of symptoms. I've met several people who had a clinical diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and some who were not diagnosed.

My layman's opinion is that most of them had no interest in stabbing or shooting me, and if they did, they would know they had done so and also that it is wrong. The purpose of Miller's public statements to television reporters and print news reporters is to create sympathy for the defendant, lessening any outrage which may stem from an acquittal.

Stories of Bishop's previous bizarre behavior have surfaced since her arrest, including a physical confrontation in a restaurant. An investigation into a pipe-bombing incident which targeted one of Bishop's Harvard professors led to an interrogation of both Amy Bishop and her husband.

An insanity defense is probably the only one that works for Bishop, who was observed and identified by many witnesses to the shootings. Since the adoption of the McNaughton Rule, the insanity defense has undergone a wide variety of revisions, depending on the state which is prosecuting.

While Utah, Montana, and Idaho have entirely abolished NGRI as a defense, other states have adopted "guilty but insane" (actually Guilty But Mentally Ill or GBMI) statutes which mitigate against a sentence which would be imposed by a successful capital murder prosecution. Other states have shifted the burden of proof for insanity to the defense. Still others define "insanity" according to "cognitive" and "volitional" tests.

In accordance with the "cognitive prong," the offender must not only know that a crime is wrong, but must also "understand" or "appreciate" the impact and meaning of a criminal act. The "volitional" aspect of the definition means that a criminal offender must be capable of not committing the crime. The state of Alabama applies the "cognitive" and "volitional" definitions to Amy Bishop's Alabama capital murder case, should the insanity defense actually go forward.

Such recondite definitions do little to salve the anger of the families of murder victims. Unless the prosecution is successful in proving capital murder, there is not likely to be sufficient "closure" for the victims and their families.

If the defense is successful in convincing a jury that Amy Bishop is legally insane, she will be committed to a level of hospitalization which is far more accommodating than a state prison, and certainly more comfortable than lethal injection or electrocution.

Alabama administers legal injection in death penalty cases, but allows the condemned to choose electrocution. When I read that, I had a flash of imagination in which I envisioned a convicted Amy Bishop pondering death penalty methods.

"Amy Bishop, you are sentenced to death by legal injection."

"No, thanks, your Honor. The electric chair looks good. I think I'll have that."

Ultimately, Roy W. Miller's preparation of an insanity defense for Amy Bishop could be a bargaining chip. Miller has publicly acknowledged that Amy Bishop killed three and wounded three others. Miller most likely sees his objective as getting a lighter sentence and better accommodations for his client-possibly long term treatment and eventual release. He will have to create the illusion of an evidentiary burden sufficient to make the prosecution conclude it must negotiate a penalty, rather than prosecute for one.