The Insanity Defense with Mackenzie Joy Brennan

Summary

---

You're Wrong About — "The Insanity Defense" with Mackenzie Joy Brennan

Date: August 19, 2025
Host: Sarah Marshall
Guest: Mackenzie Joy Brennan, lawyer and legal analyst

---

Episode Overview

In this lively, history-guided deep dive, Sarah Marshall and returning guest Mackenzie Joy Brennan take on the insanity defense—its evolution, myths, and real-life cases that have shaped it in the American legal imagination. Weaving together legal history, true crime, and cultural critique, they dissect not only famous cases (from Jazz Age murderesses to John Hinckley Jr.) but also the persistent media tropes and societal anxieties that color perceptions of criminal insanity. Tangents abound—from juries’ odd reasoning to the parasocial perils of fame—but the heart of the conversation is both critical and compassionate: What does it actually mean to be “not guilty by reason of insanity” in the American justice system, and why are we so fixated—and so wrong—about it?

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Insanity Defense: Public Myth vs Legal Reality

• The TV Stereotype: The hosts open with the observation that most people’s idea of the insanity defense comes from TV—thinking it’s a “get out of jail free” card used by clever lawyers for guilty clients ([04:45-06:05]).
  • “If you’ve watched even less Law and Order than I have, you might just think that it’s like some kind of boo hoo, you know, sob story type defense where you’re just like, ‘I’m insane.’ And the judge is like, ‘Oh, poor baby.’” – Sarah Marshall [06:05]
• Legal Definition: The standard legal principle (McNaughton test) focuses strictly on whether the defendant understood the nature of their act or knew it was wrong.
  • Mackenzie clarifies: “Anything that demonstrates trying to hide what you’ve done in theory could demonstrate that you understand, at the very least, that society sees this as wrong.” [07:49]
• Public Perception vs Reality: There’s an enduring fear of “evil people” being acquitted on technicalities—“We've landed in the, oh my God, somebody’s going to be let off on a technicality world.” – Mackenzie [07:33]

---

2. Case Study: Winnie Ruth Judd — Arizona, 1931

• The hosts enthusiastically recount the sensational case of Winnie Ruth Judd: a frail young woman convicted of killing two women, dismembering them, and traveling by train with their body parts in luggage ([11:00–15:24]).
  • “This case, it’s from Arizona… It’s got a hot 25 year old woman with tuberculosis, lesbian affairs, and then a fugitive surrendering in a funeral home right before Halloween. Like this is a super fun case except for the victims.” – Mackenzie [11:13]

Key Takeaways from the Judd Case

• Media Influence: William Randolph Hearst paid for Judd’s defense in exchange for exclusive story rights. Yellow journalism sensationalized her trial and public perception ([10:44, 17:18]).
• Gender & Insanity: Testimony at her insanity trial leaned on sexist tropes ("she won't stop twisting her handkerchief", “she laughs out of nowhere”) as evidence of mental illness ([30:02–31:44]).
• Legal Loopholes: Arizona law stipulated that the insane couldn't be executed, but provided no proper process to assert insanity. Judd was nearly executed before a second trial on insanity grounds ([21:44–23:20]).
• Outcome: Due to the insanity defense, she spent decades institutionalized, repeatedly escaping, and eventually died a free elderly woman ([33:44]).

Notable Quote

• “This is one of those ones where you’re like, you might initially not know what to do, but then… certainly just a handful of minutes into it, you’ll be like, oh, this is a very long process of sawing up human bodies that I’ve embarked on. Maybe I shouldn’t be doing this.” – Sarah [13:01]

---

3. Evolution of the Insanity Standard

• The McNaughton Rule:
  • “[It] is that somebody didn’t have the mental capacity to understand their actions, like the nature of what they’re doing, or didn’t have the capacity to understand that what they’re doing is wrong to your definition before or that it violates the rights of another.” – Mackenzie [23:39]
• The Durham Rule (more lenient):
  • If the act “was the product of mental illness,” not guilty by reason of insanity ([25:02]).
• Legal Progress:
  • Medicine often outpaces law—science wants to progress, law wants to be set in stone ([25:32]).
  • Law’s inability to keep up with medical (psychiatric) insight is a theme: “Where the law intersects with medicine, medicine generally travels farther, faster…” – Sarah [25:23]

---

4. Case Study: John Hinckley Jr. & The Reagan Shooting

([36:19–55:28])

Overview

• Hinckley shot President Reagan and others in 1981, inspired by the movie "Taxi Driver" and obsessed with Jodie Foster.
• His trial brought the insanity defense back into public controversy.

Key Points

• Psychiatric Testimony Overload: Defense called 27 psychiatrists, prosecution just two ([35:19]).
  • “Wow. That’s too many psychiatrists.” – Sarah [35:43]
• Hinckley’s Plan/Lack Thereof:
  • His “plan” was incoherent, supporting the legal claim of insanity. “The lack of coherence to the whole plan, the lack of coherence to this piece. Makes sense.” – Mackenzie [49:58]
• Cultural & Gender Tropes:
  • Hinckley seen as proto-parasocial case: “It was funny how much the word parasocial kept coming to mind…back then, it was almost like that in and of itself was proof of insanity.” – Mackenzie [43:50]

Notable Moment

• The jury watched all of "Taxi Driver" in the courtroom. “They played the entirety of the movie for the jury… imagine you’re just, like, trying to… that is a long and intense movie.” – Sarah [53:35]

Legal Standard at the Time (Model Penal Code Test)

• Not just about right and wrong; “[if you] lacked capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct or lacked the capacity to conform your conduct to the law’s requirements.” ([55:22])
  • "I think if they had had just the McNaughton test... there wouldn’t have been this, like, or you’re so mentally ill that you can’t conform your conduct to legal norms." – Mackenzie [55:56]

---

5. Aftermath: Political Backlash and Legal Reforms

• Congressional Response: Hinckley's verdict led to a crackdown—raising the bar for the insanity defense, limiting expert testimony, or abolishing the defense in some states ([64:26]).
• Prisons as Mental Facilities: With the closure of asylums and lack of support for mental illness, “prisons are the mental health facilities” by default ([62:58]).
• Modern Variations:
  • Some states have “guilty but mentally ill” verdicts—individuals go to prison, possibly with some psychiatric care, but no actual mitigation ([68:13]).
  • “It’s just like, when someone’s like, how are you doing? You’re like, well, I feel guilty, but also mentally ill.” – Sarah [68:04]

---

6. Underlying Philosophical Questions

• Purpose of Punishment:
  • Is legal punishment about retribution, safety, rehabilitation, or something else?
  • “What is the goal of punishment?” – Sarah [57:31]
  • “What is the goal of incarceration? Because if you are found not guilty... it’s not like he was walking around. He was incarcerated.” – Mackenzie [57:41]
• Redemption vs Revenge:
  • “If we’re going to pretend to be the country that we like pretending to be… we have to at least go along with the claim that we do want people to heal, if they possibly can.” – Sarah [73:18]
  • “Those people [who want endless punishment] are motivated by, I would say, non utilitarian motives and things that we wouldn’t want ruling our sentencing.” – Mackenzie [73:36]

---

Memorable Quotes and Moments with Timestamps

• Public Misunderstanding:
  • “We got to do something about it and we got to think of the children.” – Sarah [02:51]
• On Winnie Ruth Judd’s Bizarre Case:
  • “She becomes friends with these two gals and it’s a little unclear who was sleeping with whom, but there are gals… She gets really mad one night and long story short, the two gals end up dead.” – Mackenzie [12:16]
  • “She didn’t know what to do, so she chopped them up and put them in her travel trunk and hatbox.” – Mackenzie [12:45]
• On Gendered Evidence of Insanity:
  • “I feel like when people…have to present evidence that a woman is mentally ill, they just kind of like present evidence that she’s a woman and they’re like, well, same thing. Really?” – Sarah [31:44]
• On Legal Revision, Law vs Progress:
  • “Medicine generally travels farther, faster… and the law sort of like comes scurrying afterwards or maybe sometimes following casually afterwards.” – Sarah [25:23]
  • “Law wants to be set in stone. So. It’s kind of antithetical to the whole idea of science progress.” – Mackenzie [25:41]
• Hinckley & Modern Parallels:
  • “It was really funny to read all this symptomology that came out at trial. And I don’t know that we would all recognize that as being so common nowadays.” – Mackenzie [44:27]
• On American Views of Violence:
  • “There’s a sort of core tenet of American masculinity that violence is just, like, a nice hobby. And I don’t think that that’s a sane belief system, but if you ask a lot of people, they’ll say that it is.” – Sarah [51:27]
• Closing Reflections:
  • “The law is not just an instrument of control, but can also…try and conceptualize better things.” – Sarah [74:16]
  • “I really think it’s the only way to be if we want to move forward at all. Because fear just rots your brain.” – Mackenzie [75:02]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Leopold & Loeb, Alienists & Public Insanity – [02:51–04:23]
• Winnie Ruth Judd Case – [11:00–34:43]
• Legal Definitions of Insanity (McNaughton, Durham, etc.) – [23:38–26:51]
• John Hinckley Jr. Case – [36:19–55:28]
• Model Penal Code and “Capacity” – [55:21–56:14]
• Prisons as Default Mental Facilities – [62:58–64:26]
• Guilty but Mentally Ill/State Law Patchwork – [68:11–69:59]
• Closing Philosophical Questions – [73:18–74:16]

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is witty, irreverent, and incisively critical. Both hosts employ humor, vivid analogies, and pop culture references (from Law & Order and SVU to Reagan as Palpatine and “manicured” assassins) to interrogate deep issues of law, justice, and society's hunger for order and scapegoats. The mood shifts seamlessly from glib to thoughtful as they reflect on both the personal tolls and the systemic failures—and possibilities—of American justice.

---

Resources & Further Reading

• For listeners wanting to read more: the hosts recommend researching the Winnie Ruth Judd case and its tabloid aftermath, the history of the insanity defense (especially McNaughton and Durham rules), and states’ post-Hinckley reforms.

---

Guest Info:
Mackenzie Joy Brennan: @mkzjoybrennon on Instagram, mkzjoybrennon.com

Hosts:
Sarah Marshall: @Remember_Sarah

---

[End of Summary]

Transcript

[A]

Like, broadly speaking, if you're an American woman and you're not insane in the 1920s and 30s, then, like, you're not aware of what's going on. Welcome to youo Wrongabout. I'm Sarah Marshall and this week we are of course investigating the insanity defense. The Law, the Myth, the Legend with Mackenzie Joy Brennan. Mackenzie was last with us for our episode. Has the Supreme Court always been this terrible? MacKenzie is a lawyer and legal analyst and would like to tell us that since we last talked, the Supreme Court has also shown us that it can get even more terrible. So we should also probably have her back on to talk about that too. But in the meantime, this episode really does have so many stories within it. A Great Depression era woman facing off against the electric chair, Jodie Foster, and of course, Ronald Reagan. Mackenzie is also joining us for an upcoming bonus episode. I can't wait. And if you haven't listened to our bonus episodes, you should check them out sometime. We have had some really fun stuff lately, including a discussion of beyond belief, fact or fiction with Chelsea Weber Smith and a conversation about Bigfoot, my favorite cryptid, with our Inconvenient Mammal correspondent, Lulu Miller. And that's your introduction. This is a law episode. It's a history episode. We're so happy to share these stories with you and to keep on learning about the legal world, which tries to make us feel dumb so we don't notice what people are up to. But with a little bit of vocabulary and with a great guest like Mackenzie, we can learn to understand the world we're in. And let's go do it together. Welcome to youo Wrong about the podcast where we talk about topics that you grew up hearing on law and my great joy and dream. And with me today is our legal correspondent, our con law correspondent, I believe, actually Mackenzie Brennan, to talk to us about the insanity defense.

[B]

I'm so excited about this and I'm really glad to be doing it together because it is a wild ride, as the name would suggest, and a lot of angry people at different phases about too many people being insane or not enough people being insane. We gotta something about it.

[A]

We got to do something about it and we got to think of the children. I'm also reminded of, and this is me quoting from memory something I read years ago. But I swear to God that there was a like political cartoon around the time of the Leopold and Loeb trial because there was, you know, it was a huge media trial. It was two rich teenagers who had or close to teenagers who had apparently Decided to commit the perfect murder for fun. Definitely made a big impression on Hickok.

[B]

And they always fail at it. I feel like they always, always. Coburger thing is the same. They're like, this time I'm the smartest one. I'm going to get away with it. And time immemorial, they all fail.

[A]

I guess, like, at the time, the forensic psychiatrist is. Was referred to as an alienist.

[B]

Okay. Yeah.

[A]

Right. And obviously, if you're. You have a robust defense, especially with Clarence Darrow involved, you're going to try and get a sympathetic alienist who says, well, I mean, I think they were trying to mount insanity is one of their defense tactics. And I think that there was a cartoon at the time that showed people reading about the trial or hearing about it and that the joke was truly something. That moment when you realize everyone's insane.

[B]

Oh, wow, that's great. I wonder, do you know what year that was?

[A]

Tumblr is eternal. Yeah, seriously, this was in the 20s, like mid-20s. 24. It was like, 27 is a jazz age trial.

[B]

Because that sets us up kind of nicely. Okay, we could start with the case that, like, illustrated this one version of the insanity defense, which is the McNaughton test. So there are, like, stricter and less strict definitions over time, and we can look at them as a spectrum.

[A]

Well, let me start with, like a bonehead question.

[B]

Go for it.

[A]

Okay, so like today, right now. Right. If you're, like watching SVU with your grandma.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And they've got someone who's lawyers using the insanity defense. Like, what is the average, like, American TV viewer's understanding of what that means? And is that approximately what the actual legal definition is?

[B]

Oh, boy. I feel like maybe you are better qualified. I don't know. You're pretty legally savvy. I feel like knowing the law messes you up about what the average person thinks because it just rewires your brain in that way of thinking.

[A]

Right. Okay. I think I have two levels of understanding.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

So I think. And I'm not confident that I'm right, but I think that the actual legal definition.

[B]

Legally insane, rather than medically. Because of course, complicate it.

[A]

Yeah. Legally insane, as opposed. Right. As opposed to all the other possible definitions is that you lack the capacity to tell the difference between right and wrong. But as I say that, I'm like, is that true? That might just be what they say on TV, like, about how you have to wait 48 hours to report a.

[B]

Missing person or whatever, which, like, don't Go by those rules. If somebody goes missing, please try to report them, because that is not every state.

[A]

Yeah, there's our first psa.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Like, there's, you know, if you're, like, if you've watched even less Law and Order than I have, then you might just think that it's like some kind of boo hoo, you know, sob story type defense where you're just like, I'm insane. And the judge is like, oh, poor baby.

[B]

Or like, do you have a diagnosis or were you having a crazy. Like, did people see you being insane?

[A]

Yeah, but I know that also, like, across the board, there is this general American fear of someone getting off on a technicality. And I think that that is one of the ways that we see that as happening. And I'm very curious about what kind of a distance we must travel between the average SVU viewer and what appears to really be going on, and also why it's going on.

[B]

Yeah. So I think that you're absolutely right, and I know you've brought it up in different contexts on your show, but we're in this era where this specter of evil people getting off on technicalities is looming over all of us, and these people are beyond reform. And so this is a really terrible fear. And that world gets pretty far away from the whole founding principle of it's better that one or that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent be in prison. Like that. Those two conceptions are pretty far apart. And yet I think we've landed in the, oh, my God, somebody's going to be let off on a technicality world.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And in regards to the insanity defense, I think your definition is. I think you're right that that's what a lot of people think it is. That's kind of what I was going to say, too. And it's pretty close to the truth.

[A]

The like, lack of ability to determine the difference between.

[B]

Yeah, and that's a pretty strict interpretation, because if you think of it from really simple terms, anything that demonstrates trying to hide what you've done in theory could demonstrate that you understand, at the very least, that society sees this as wrong.

[A]

Right. And also, like, as a. As a question, because I have no idea what the answer is, but, like, what if I'm like, okay, society recognizes that it would be wrong of me to assassinate this person, but I also understand, based on my delusions that I must do it, that they are controlling my brain, and so I have to. Right. I mean, that's a difficult area.

[B]

Yeah. And that's exactly what the problem, if you think it's a problem, is with this stricter definition. So I actually was going use a case from when that was more the law of the land. And so we started there, but applied it in a kind of loose way. Then we came to a much looser definition then. And this is where we'll spend most of our time. John Hinckley Jr. Tried to kill President Reagan, got off.

[A]

On an insanity defense to get Jodie Foster's attention. You know, I mean, which, like, who.

[B]

Among us has not tried? Exactly. But then everybody was very upset that he dared serve his sentence in a mental health facility, which he ended up serving 35 years at an inpatient facility. So it's not like he was frolicking around.

[A]

And now he posts his acoustic guitar songs on YouTube.

[B]

Look like we'll talk more about him, but this is a guy. He does paintings and has a rescue cat and writes his little acoustic songs that is less harmful than many people that I've met, so.

[A]

Right. And probably talked about in your line of work. Yeah, yeah.

[B]

So we'll get to his case, though.

[A]

Yeah. And of course, I'm always interested in a case where someone is able to access extremely robust legal defense, and then the public sees that happening and is like, oh, my God, no, that's too much defense. We need to scale this back totally.

[B]

It's another thing that we've talked about in other contexts that oftentimes when somebody has a successful defense, and I do think this can go too far. Like, I just was covering the Diddy trial and he had, like, Simpson.

[A]

Too much defense. Nobody needs eight lawyers if they're one person.

[B]

You don't need more resources than the government. Like, at that point, it's really excessive. But, I mean, Hinckley was not a wealthy man, I think. Oh. Actually, the first case that we're going to look at is an example of having a lot of legal resources because this gal had her legal fees paid for by William Randolph Hearst.

[A]

Okay, I want to hear about this one.

[B]

Yeah, right. He wanted exclusive rights to her story, so he. In exchange.

[A]

Now, why don't we have more tabloid media offering to pay for people's legal defense? Sure, it would be incredibly unethical, but still. But even so.

[B]

Exactly. Well, Hearst blazed a lot of super cool trails that made policymakers say, like, okay, now we have to put this law into place because the ethics of this are so fuked.

[A]

See, honey, because of me, there's a warning.

[B]

Exactly like the sign put on the wall that makes you Aware that someone has tried this before. So there are a lot of cases that are like good early insanity defense ones. But this case, it's from Arizona, like me, and it has everything. It's got a hot 25 year old woman with tuberculosis, lesbian affairs, and then a fugitive surrendering in a funeral home right before Halloween. Like this is a super fun case except for the victims.

[A]

And then Hearst.

[B]

And then Hearst.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So this is Winnie Ruth Judd. And in 1931.

[A]

Wow, that is a name.

[B]

I know, right?

[A]

I want to hear her country single.

[B]

I know she could have had a rollicking career, but for the fact that she moved out to Arizona with her erstwhile husband, Dr. Jud, because she had tuberculosis and they thought that it would dry up her lungs.

[A]

Yeah, you do what you can. Yeah, yeah.

[B]

So they move out there. But Dr. Judd is busy being addicted to morphine, so he's not really paying attention to his wife, as is the.

[A]

The style at the time.

[B]

Totally. I would have done the same probably if I had the access, but. So she becomes friends with these two gals and it's a little unclear who.

[A]

Was sleeping with whom, but there are gals.

[B]

There's also another guy in the picture. She gets really mad one night and long story short, the two gals end up dead.

[A]

Winnie, don't do that.

[B]

Yeah, no, you shouldn't. I'm against that. She didn't know what to do, so she chopped them up and put them in her travel trunk and hatbox.

[A]

This is one of those ones where you're like, you might initially not know what to do, but then.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Certainly just a handful of minutes into it, you'll be like, oh, this is a very long process of sawing up human bodies that I've embarked on. Maybe I shouldn't be doing this.

[B]

You know, I thought the same thing as I was reading about this case, because it almost to me is proof of insanity that she's like, oh, shoot, I shot people. You know what I should do? Put their limbs in my hat box and get on a train to Los Angeles.

[A]

No.

[B]

Like cross state lines.

[A]

It certainly isn't evidence of sanity.

[B]

Exactly. If anything, it's gonna err on the not super stable side.

[A]

It's just not practical.

[B]

It's not. Because that's how she's caught. So she gets on the train and her trunk is leaking and they're like.

[A]

It seems like you have a box full of dripping human body parts, ma'. Am.

[B]

On our UN air conditioned train. Because trains are not air conditioned in that era. So she's got this putrid blood leaking trunk. And the porter says, like, you, you gotta do something about this. You can't bring your hunting spoils in the cargo hold.

[A]

They're like, listen, we're gonna, we're gonna continue to not notice for a while because you are a little lady.

[B]

You are a cute little lady. So we'll give you some leeway. And she's like, oh, I don't have the key. And then just runs away. So she, she eventually gives herself up.

[A]

She's a smoothie.

[B]

She. She's not well. Like, there's no read of this.

[A]

This is to be clear. Like, I know that this is a sad story. I, it's, it's very sad, but also, what an idiot. I love it.

[B]

I feel like that's why she became somebody who, like, nobody in the state of Arizona wanted to see her executed. By the time that she was released, people had been begging for her release for years. Because, with respect, she's so dumb and frail.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That nobody believes she did it herself. Like, there's no way that she was.

[A]

Able to do this murder herself.

[B]

Yeah. And chop up the people. Like, she's a frail, tubercular 25 year old whose motive is kind of unclear.

[A]

I like to believe that I am stronger than a young woman with tuberculosis in the 1920s, but I think I would really struggle to chop up two.

[B]

Human bodies and then bring them to the train station.

[A]

Yeah, that too. Yeah.

[B]

Like, that's heavy.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I don't know if she had a buddy helping. I don't know. But the bottom line is that, like, the reason why I thought this would be a good case is that public opinion, by the time all of the evidence came out was so in her favor and yet she almost died. She almost was executed because there wasn't really a super clear insanity defense at trial option when she was put on trial. And there was so much. I mean, this is an evergreen issue, but like media attention and jury tampering and all that good stuff that comes with it. But.

[A]

Oh, good. Yeah.

[B]

She gets to trial because she surrenders in the funeral home and they bring her on back to Phoenix.

[A]

Is this just a random funeral home that she runs into or does she have some kind of connection?

[B]

Great question. You would think there would be a connection, but no, I think she's just kind of wandering around.

[A]

Yeah. You gotta hide somewhere.

[B]

There's another point in her journey where she's like hiding in a drainpipe and she writes a confession letter.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

One of many different variants of the confession letter. So, like, she's messy.

[A]

People do not fugitive the way they used to.

[B]

Right. Or she was just one of a kind. She was not great at strategizing, but she was sure fun to watch.

[A]

So she's just. It seems like she's kind of this madcap tabloid gal, you know, like the Octomom or something. And it's like, we tried to execute the Octomom. It's like, no, I think she's. I want to make fun of her choices. I don't want her to. To die.

[B]

Right. That is a great parallel. Yeah. Because I don't. I don't hate her.

[A]

Well, I'm sure some people would like to execute the Octomom, but I. I really don't want to.

[B]

She's a slightly different kind of messy, but it's hard to time adjust. It's like inflation. It's like hard to do a. Yeah.

[A]

And that's a whole other topic is like true crime media of the 1920s and how all that.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

Yeah, please come back for that one.

[B]

And speaking of Hearst, like, I'm sure the yellow journalism mixed in did not help anything.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But there's so much more to this case that, like, if you're interested, just look this gal up. Because there's super fun stuff. I say glibly, but. So she gets convicted and sentenced to death. And I sent you. It's really ghoulish. There's an invite.

[A]

No.

[B]

And I think I sent you the file. So this is how we celebrated the eve of Winnie Ruth Judd's execution.

[A]

Okay, I have it. Oh, boy. Well, it looks like a wedding invitation.

[B]

It's personally signed.

[A]

Yeah, signed by the warden.

[B]

So cute.

[A]

Addressed to a Mrs. And it says in kind of gothic font, you are respectfully invited to witness the execution of Winnie Ruth Judd at the Arizona State Prison at. I mean, literally, it's like the same kerning as a wedding invitation. Yep.

[B]

Even like the way they do the.

[A]

Hours at Lawrence between the hours of 12 and 5am Friday, April 21st A.D. yeah. 1933. I mean, this ends by the warden, though.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Come on, man.

[B]

And he had had to sign a stack of these so that it had a personal touch, I guess. Like bananas.

[A]

God. I mean, this is the thing. This is one of the things about the American legal system where we're like, yes, it is a very solemn and sacred duty to remove people who have forfeited the right to life from earth. And it's like, yeah, but also you do things like nickname the electric Chair. Old sparky.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

Invitations on at least one occasion. It's not good.

[B]

And like, somebody picked out the font to this. Because when you said, like, gothic font, it occurred to me, like, yeah, somebody went and decided, like, no, this is the appropriate calligraphy style that we want for our.

[A]

They had. I don't know what the 1933 version of Kevin is. They had Woodrow do it. They sent Woodrow down to the stationers.

[B]

To get, like, the block text. Yeah. So this is the 11th hour. Obviously this poor little gal is freaking out. She's. She's having fits of what will later be recognized as insanity. Recognized? I don't know.

[A]

I mean, also, if you're like, broadly speaking, if you're an American woman and you're not insane in the 1920s and 30s, then, like, you're not aware of what's going on.

[B]

I mean, yeah, think of her circumstance. Like, she's got an addict husband who's.

[A]

Also a doctor who also might have chopped up her girlfriend's question mark.

[B]

I think the prevailing opinion is that they all were fighting over a guy and there was maybe a self defense element, but also maybe the guy was involved in killing the girls.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Which that I buy the most, I think, because he sounds like no good.

[A]

Right. And there being some kind of love quadrangle happening.

[B]

Yes, totally. So guess who intervenes at the 11th hour.

[A]

William Randolph Hearst.

[B]

No, Eleanor Roosevelt, of course.

[A]

God bless. What did she do?

[B]

So she writes in. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people have issues.

[A]

She's like, no one can execute you without your permission.

[B]

So cute. Love the inspo. So she writes in to ask for clemency, but obviously the gears are already turning with the legal defense and somebody decides that there was a lot of mess going on at her first trial. There was a lot of jury misconduct. The reason that the foreperson says that they sentenced her to death was that they thought it would make her talk. So they really didn't want her to die. They're like, this is a strategy, but that's not really a jury's job.

[A]

We use about the same tactic now. Or we would if we could, I would say.

[B]

But we don't say it out loud if we do, because that's not what juries are for, strategizing to, like, get her to spill.

[A]

Instead you, like, find out a juror, like, posted something on their Facebook later on and you're like, hey, yeah, this.

[B]

Is the really dirty equivalent of that. So, like, there's a lot of stuff conspiring to get this execution overturned, but what works is she's insane. So we're gonna have another trial because at the time, they didn't really have it so that you could assert it proactively, at least not in Arizona.

[A]

Hmm. So does that mean that there's, like, not necessarily kind of procedural room for.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And I was, like, thumbing through the old statutes that they have online. It's mentioned that nobody who's insane can be executed, but there's no provision of how to assert that or of how.

[A]

To get an expert witness to say it. Or it's just sort of like, yes, in theory, it would work, but we won't tell you how or anything.

[B]

Yeah, we shouldn't do this, but there's no way to make sure that that doesn't happen. In essence, don't you think that, in.

[A]

Essence, the spirit of American trial law can be summed up by the iconic meme, we're all trying to find the guy who did this? It's like there's. I feel like I run into. In. In these stories from history, a lot of this vibe of, like, oh, man, someone should write, like, a law or a statute that addresses this issue.

[B]

A lot of buck passing. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And it's because, like, they're all afraid of doing it wrong, but then nobody does it. It's the same thing we talked about with enumerating stuff in the Bill of.

[A]

Rights, like running a leftist coffee shop. Never do it perfectly, so why bother?

[B]

So why bother? Truly, for many reasons.

[A]

Because someone might yell at you one time couldn't survive that.

[B]

Yeah. So I think you're right. But also, like, the people who make those mistakes are rarely there to answer for them.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Although this is a pretty big oversight. Like writing a statutory code and saying, like, this should never happen, but not writing in the loophole. Mm, that's a problem.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So they at least gave her the second trial all for the purpose of insanity. And this is under the m' Naughton standard. And that is what we actually have returned to a stricter version of now post Hinckley. So we'll get to the modern iteration.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But basically what this test is is that somebody didn't have the mental capacity to understand their actions, like the nature of what they're doing, or didn't have the capacity to understand that what they're doing is wrong to your definition before or that it violates the rights of another. So that, distilled is basically what you said.

[A]

And how long have we had that around?

[B]

At the time, it was asserted in this case. It was less than 100 years old. It was this guy named Daniel McNaughton in the UK who I think like tried to kill a Prime Minister's secretary because he thought that they were conspiring against him. And it was a really similar situation that's like, oh, we shouldn't put somebody to death if they're fully crazy. So let's devise this rule that now is named after the would be. No, no, no. I think actually he succeeded at the assassination, McNaughton did. So that's the M' Naughten rule. It's one of multiple approaches that can be used for the insanity defense. So there's another one that's like the other end of the spectrum and this is called the Durham rule for anyone who's keeping score, but that allows you to be not guilty if whatever act, criminal act you did was the product of mental illness. So like that really covers anything, right? That's super easy.

[A]

Especially if you include narcissism. Then we can get this whole administration off scot free.

[B]

That's another thing that I think the Winnie Ruth Judd case shows is like how divorced medical understanding is from what these legal definitions are and how they do sometimes butt heads obviously back then, because we're looking at it and it.

[A]

Seems like where the law intersects with medicine, medicine generally travels farther, faster because, you know, we are trying to stop science in this country, but it's harder.

[B]

And like the goal of science is.

[A]

Progress and then the law sort of like comes scurrying afterwards or maybe sometimes following casually afterwards.

[B]

It's almost like law wants to be set in stone. So.

[A]

Right.

[B]

It's kind of antithetical to the whole idea of science progress.

[A]

Do you ever feel like the idea of the American legal system, which was so appealing to me when I was younger and now I kind of like appreciate more for its messiness maybe, but like, like, just like being a young person watching Law and Order and being like, wow, isn't it amazing that like we found these eternal truths and now we're like running a system based off of them and it's like, yeah, that would be nice if it happened, but it definitely didn't. You just kind of like have generations of people doing their best, but then some of them refuse to let anyone revise what they said. It makes it kind of difficult and annoying.

[B]

Yeah, like I, I think the only way that it does work when I just said what I said, which is that it's antithetical to the idea of Progress. I was like, oh, God, that's like, it's true. But what a terrible thing. Yeah, that's not so I feel like, yes, I agree with you. And it's a forever cycle of being like, oh, God damn it. And then hoping that things get better.

[A]

Right. Or we can, you know, try and decriminalize progress a bit, maybe.

[B]

How about that?

[A]

But it feels like it appeals to sort of that most perfectionistic impulse within people to be like, we figured out how to handle things and we're not going to take any more comments at this time.

[B]

Right. Well, and I guess, like to play devil's advocate, there are two sides of this particular issue in the extreme. Because obviously look at what, for example, the current Supreme Court is doing with settled precedent. Like, you don't want somebody or a legal system rather, that allows you to make changes willy nilly with every changing administration.

[A]

Yes, that's a very, very good point and a very timely point.

[B]

It shouldn't be that easy that we can just change every X number of years because some new interest comes in. So I think that's like the other side we have to avoid. But I don't know what the medium is.

[A]

Well, it just. It all seems so easy when I'm just sitting on my couch complaining about it. I know.

[B]

I think we could fix it. If we did it, we would do it, right?

[A]

If we did it, we could really get this thing licked. Probably inside of a convention at its best. I do feel like in legal history you can see this balance or this sort of tightrope being walked between those needs that you're describing. The need to sort of like be overly reverent for the law that you're creating and the need to make it so flexible that anyone can come in and structurally reorganize it. I don't know that there is something fascinating and troubling and also in the best of times, really profound and impressive about when it kind of works or when people are sincerely trying to create that balance between protecting people from their worst impulses and recognizing their sovereignty.

[B]

You know, I would be happier if more of the stalwart folks or the regressive folks were actually reverent. Because I think part of the problem is that, like. Right, they're not actually being true to Prince. Well, this gets into the last episode we did. Yeah, I know. Like, they're just making up their own new thing and calling it Reverence for the past.

[A]

Yeah, right. They're like, I love the Constitution so much that I am wiping my ass with It. Yeah. Okay. Interesting that I rewrote it.

[B]

And yeah. So there's a little philosophical diversion. Whatever, it's fine.

[A]

So this is where we are in the 20s. We're in the. The jazz age.

[B]

Yeah. So Winnie. Winnie is saved at the 11th hour by this insanity trial under the M' Naughton standard. And the evidence that comes out, it's medical evidence in the early 30s and it is very sexist. And it's a lot of doctors saying, like, look at how she twists her handkerchief there. She won't stop twisting it. Like she's obsessed with her handkerchief.

[A]

She's like, Goldie Hawn and Duncan Death becomes her free. This woman.

[B]

That's pretty cool. But like, that truly was some evidence that they produced a trial. Was like we were watching her in the first trial and she just wouldn't stop twisting her handkerchief. And I'm thinking like, my God, by this definition, I would have been toast.

[A]

Well, get this woman a fidget spinner.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

It's also certainly through the 70s and 80s and I would argue really, like, to this day, it's amazing how often sort of a lack of positive relationships with men as is positioned as, you know, evidence that a woman is mentally unwell. And it's like, perhaps it's the men's fault. I don't know, maybe.

[B]

Maybe it's some other factor. Maybe it's your morphine addicted husband who makes your life a living hell. And he. So he comes on the stand and he actually slaps her in the first trial because she was crying so hard that he had to her husband. Yeah. So he. They clearly have a very nice relationship. But he gives evidence of her insanity and he says that she really wanted a baby and kept talking like she was gonna have a baby. And again, to me, I'm like, what else does a woman without a child do in the early 30s? Like, she has no purpose. She's living here because she's unwell. Her husband's crazy. What are you supposed to do, talk about having a baby like that? I don't know. So that's evidence, I guess, that she's unwell. They also say sometimes she laughs out of nowhere, nothing funny is happening, and she just laughs out of nowhere.

[A]

I feel like when people in these again, like in 100 years ago and also today, when people have to present evidence that a woman is mentally ill, they just kind of like present evidence that she's a woman and they're like, well, same thing. Really?

[B]

Yeah, yeah. That she reacts to things sometimes that we can't See.

[A]

Right. Because certainly what has always struck me about kind of women's mental illness as described in the 60s and 70s and, like, not just legally, but by clinicians at the time is that there's this idea of, like, well, she's poorly adjusted. She's poorly adjusted to society, so she's mentally ill. Right. And it's like, well, how. How is she supposed to adjust to this?

[B]

Yeah. Like, so in this case, like, her husband is clearly not a partner to her if he is both an addict and working as a doctor. So, like, he's probably not there a whole lot if she physically can't bear children because she's too frail. But that's kind of your prescribed purpose. That's going to take a toll on your psyche. I don't know.

[A]

It's. It's a little bit funny to me to be characterizing it like this because I feel like chronic illness is such a modern term.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, we had other terms we could say wasting disease back in the day, but, like, I mean, I guess this is the direction we're going in with, like, healthcare in this country. But, like, imagine all the tubercular girlies on Instagram talking about living with tuberculosis because they contracted it from drinking raw milk. It's a little community at any time.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But, you know, she has limited spoons. She's got tuberculosis.

[B]

She does. And especially, like, she's been living in this prison where she was going to be executed. That's a culture shock, I'm sure, for anyone.

[A]

It's been a tough time. People are sending out cute invitations to.

[B]

Her execution, and even her friends have vested interests. Like, Hearst wanted his stories, so, like, it's a weird time to be. Winnie.

[A]

Yeah. Hearst is nobody's friend.

[B]

No.

[A]

Sadly.

[B]

So she gets reacted reclassified and put into a mental health facility. And I think she holds the record.

[A]

Which I'm sure is a great place to be.

[B]

I know. But I think she holds the record of the most escapes. Oh, she. Yeah, she escaped like, seven times in the 38 years she was there.

[A]

I hope it was fun.

[B]

Well, one time she went and went to San Francisco and became a nanny for a wealthy family for, like, a couple years under an assumed name.

[A]

And then they finally caught up with her and they were like, all right, back in the pokey.

[B]

Winnie, this is my. My fun connection is, is my aunt was the paralegal on her case when she was eventually released, so.

[A]

Oh, my God.

[B]

Yeah. And apparently she was a very nice old lady, and she just wanted to live her Life and be left alone. So, yeah, she died happily at, like, 93, and she was free.

[A]

So she outlived everybody.

[B]

Yeah. Go, Winnie Ruth Judd. Sorry to your victims also.

[A]

Yeah. Or, you know, whatever happened.

[B]

Whatever the hell happened.

[A]

Yeah. Sorry to everybody except the warden.

[B]

So we thought that was a fun illustration of how little medicine is involved. Like, it's subjective. I'm sure it can be done very well.

[A]

Right. But it's really about, like, what a jury can be convinced of and how. And whether a jury or, I guess, a judge in some cases can be convinced that.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

A defendant's behavior fits this criteria. Is that about it?

[B]

Yeah. And to your point, resources, too, because some of it's money. Some of it is just like legal acumen. In the Hinckley case, which we'll go to next, the prosecution, I think, only called two psychiatrists because they were like, well, this is a slam dunk. And then the defense called 27.

[A]

Wow. That's too many psychiatrists.

[B]

Honestly, it's way too many. There's probably a joke set up somewhere in there, but, like, obviously there was an imbalance there.

[A]

It's as many psychiatrists as Jim Morrison had years of being alive. It's not a joke exactly. It's more of a fact.

[B]

It's just a fact.

[A]

But, yeah.

[B]

I mean, it goes to show you that, like, never count your chickens, I guess.

[A]

Right? Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. They thought it was so obvious that he was guilty that he wouldn't get off. And then.

[A]

And yet, whoops sometimes. Well, okay, let me. Can I tell you, like, my understanding of.

[B]

Yes, please.

[A]

Okay. Because I've read, you know, a bit about this. It's like, part of my General Reagan research. Because, of course, Reagan is like the Palpatine behind where we are now.

[B]

Everything.

[A]

Yeah. And somehow he is alive. That's going to happen our next election. Like, somehow Reagan is alive, and then he's going to run for president, I guess.

[B]

Well, you know what? The last speech he gave, right before Hinckley shot him, he ended the speech with and Make America Great again. So he is, in a sense.

[A]

Okay. So I remember reading about how I think this is, to me, like, a really interesting thing about Hinckley is that he appears to have been, like, just around and, like, not trying very hard to find and assassinate Reagan. Or, like, he was thinking about it, but, like, he wasn't, as far as I can remember, like, super dedicated.

[B]

No.

[A]

And then Reagan, like, happened to be at the Washington Hilton to talk to, like, Teamsters or something, and Hinckley was like, oh, I'm right by the Washington Hilton. I'm just gonna assassinate this guy. I mean, he was at, like, pretty close range, so it. You know, he clearly was a much worse shot than Oswald.

[B]

He actually gave that as some evidence of his insanity was the fact that.

[A]

He didn't aim, that he wasn't very good at it.

[B]

Well, he says that he didn't try.

[A]

Huh.

[B]

That he totally could have if he wanted to.

[A]

He was trying a lot harder than most people do to assassinate the President, to be fair. He was there with a gun, but.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And then he, like. He kind of, like, winged Reagan. Right. Or like a bullet, like, bounced off of part of the car and, like, into Reagan's torso. Something like that.

[B]

Yeah. And other people were more grievously wounded.

[A]

Right.

[B]

One of the victims did eventually die of complications related to the injuries.

[A]

Right. Because there was a police officer.

[B]

There were four people shot in total. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like a. Yeah. A Metro police officer. There was a Secret Service agent. And then this is my soapbox moment. James Brady was the White House press secretary. He was shot as well. And so I wanted to qualify everything that I say about Reagan with the fact that James Brady was the predecessor to Larry Speaks. Larry Speaks was the press secretary when the AIDS crisis started. Now, I had an uncle who died of AIDS in 1988, and his death almost certainly could have been prevented if Reagan just fucking listened. So if I sound pointedly glib about an attempt on Reagan's life, it's because I am. So should we talk about Hinckley? Yeah.

[A]

Oh, my God, let's please talk about Hinckley, because who is this guy who happens to be in the neighborhood and tries to pull off an assassination? And, boy, does he not manicured.

[B]

He is a lonely, straight white guy in his 20s, which is really bizarre. Yeah. And he's obsessed with a girl. And so he watched Taxi Driver in his. I don't want to say formative years. He. He tried to be a musician for, like. He literally went to New York, couldn't find a hotel room that he could afford. The traffic was too much. So he's like, I give up on my dream of being a musician one day. He could have used some good parenting at that point.

[A]

And he's like, what, like 20 at this.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

He's young around his assassination attempt, but.

[B]

So he is kind of drifting around, watches Taxi Driver and sees it, like, 16 times or something in the theater and just gets hyper fixated on Jodie Foster, who at the time was in.

[A]

Minor, which is also so Weird because it's a movie about a creepy scary man and like, at any point it's about it. And also it's a movie about a creepy scary man who is himself fixated on Jodie Foster. And you would just kind of think that at a certain point you'd be like, maybe I don't actually want to follow the exact same path as this guy.

[B]

It's like the American Psycho thing. It's like, yeah, half of the audience is gonna miss that. This is like, God, you're right, because.

[A]

Men love Taxi Driver and they love. Yeah, where you're like, wait, but do you get it? This is about a man like completely decompensating and how it's like, bad. Ah, that's the thing about films, you know, it's. They can say they can communicate all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean people have to understand them.

[B]

Well, you'd have to be so ham fisted to just like give on a silver platter that we don't want to be Travis Bickle. Like, that's not aspirational, my guy.

[A]

Right? Well, you would have to have Scorsese come out at the end, be like, I'm already Scorsese.

[B]

Remember me?

[A]

I was the guy in the taxi at the beginning. I was talking to the taxi driver.

[B]

Anyway, don't do this like a John Hughes moment. So by the time he gets obsessed with her, she is was just starting at Yale. He went out to LA for a while and was doing his, you know, dirty LA street kid thing as he gets obsessed with her. Then he decides, like, I gotta go back and be closer to her in New Haven. So he moves back to the northeast and starts like calling her. And so there are some recordings of those phone calls and she's very. Oh my God, this is why I thought of this part now. Like, she's so firm but composed. She's like, man, is it you again? Like, you understand I can't talk to you because I don't know you, right? Like, she's nice, but she's rational. I think if I were a famous person in college at that time, I'd be like, fuck off, bro. Like, leave me alone. But she's very measured and I guess.

[A]

She has a lot of practice because she's been famous since she was at least, you know, I mean, she was, was, she was in movies as a small child. So she was just like, I want.

[B]

To say like 9ish.

[A]

Yeah, she was. Well, and I think she, she did like, I mean, not that you would be known for this. Exactly. But I think she did a Coppertone campaign when she was, like, two. You know, that's adorable, since she was a baby, basically.

[B]

But, you know, that doesn't give you the. I don't know, the psychological strength to not unleash your rage at somebody.

[A]

Right. Yeah. You feel like she's getting her Clarice Starling practice that she's gonna use in the Silence of the Lambs in years and years.

[B]

Pretty formative, but also a hair of discomfort that is grounding in her humanity, you know?

[A]

Right. You can tell that she's not enjoying this or she's not, like, you know, grandstanding or anything, but also that she's not gonna back down.

[B]

Like, she appreciates the gravity of the situation. And I feel like with somebody who. Who was as unstable as Hinckley was at the time, obviously he was ready and willing to take a life, and he was living in delusion land.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's really good that she didn't get too aggressive, because I could see rejection having turned really ugly with a case.

[A]

Like this or, you know, him deciding to show up at Yale instead.

[B]

That's what I mean. Yeah.

[A]

Okay. So he. So he fits a type that we recognize.

[B]

Yeah. It is certainly a type. And I would say when I was reading about it, it was funny how much the word parasocial kept coming to mind. Except that that was a weirder phenomenon back then. Like, to think that you know somebody and you have a relationship with somebody and a loyalty to them just, like, totally unilaterally becomes really common down the road. But back then, it was almost like that in and of itself was proof of insanity. And I think we slowly have gotten to a place where it's more common. I don't know what to do with that information. It just came to mind.

[A]

You're right. And that it's become like, a whole sort of form of, like, job creation and economics.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I feel like there's sort of. There's a degree of, like, illusion that you expect people to understand they're partaking in that some number of people won't understand and will take literally. And that's always gonna. Yeah, that's always gonna be dangerous.

[B]

Exactly. And obviously, when I say parasocial relationships are more common now, people aren't taking it to this level. That's not what I mean. He obviously went to the Nth degree. But, like, it was really funny to read all this symptomology that came out at trial. And I don't know that we would all recognize that as being so common nowadays. But how about that? And they talked about, like, he had no close friendships and thus nobody to ground him in reality. And I'm like, well, that also sounds really familiar.

[A]

Yeah. Well, and we also now have, like, you know, whether or not you believe in the concept of the male loneliness epidemic, there's certainly a lot of incentives to sell them propaganda about how they'll never be loved until they buy all these, you know, protein supplements and take all these courses and learn how to, you know, buy a course where you learn how to become a magnate from someone who shouldn't have to sell all these courses on being a magnate. If they're really a magnet, if they.

[B]

Are a life coach without any certification. But, like, they're gonna help you.

[A]

Alpha male podcasters. Exactly. I hate to bring podcasts into this.

[B]

But, I mean, the podcasts don't kill people. It's the parasocial relationship. Joe Roganship kills people.

[A]

Joe Rogan kills people.

[B]

That's punchier. Yes. Okay. So, like, yeah, he develops this fixation. Weirdly enough, he was really upset about John Lennon getting assassinated like that. He lists that as a turning point.

[A]

John, listen to yourself.

[B]

Like, come on.

[A]

You're so upset about that assassination. You have to attempt America's next big assassination. The assassination of the summer, if you will.

[B]

Yeah. Like, he bought Catcher in the Rye. He went to a vigil outside the Dakota.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

After. And then he said three months later, he did his. So I didn't realize how proximate in time they were, but it really was a catalyst, which also, if you're an.

[A]

American, you have to have, you know, a certain number of people had to have been like, oh, my God, are we doing this again? Is it 1968? Are we gonna have so many assassinations now?

[B]

Yes. I thought the same. I mean. And like, the phase of hijacking. Because he also thought, right. He's like, maybe I'll try that. And he actually went to the airport in Tennessee with a handgun.

[A]

See, this is what I love. I love a criminal who can't get it off the ground. He's just like, maybe. No, I know. No parking in New York. Never mind. Never mind about the music career.

[B]

And just, like, desperately influenced by trends. He's like, oh, hijacking. Shit, maybe I'll do that.

[A]

Yeah. Which for people who don't know, in the 70s, for a while, like, people were hijacking planes, like, all over the place. You don't hear about it anymore now because, you know, now the last one we remember they flew it into the World Trade center, and it was a tragedy that changed the world forever. But in the 70s, probably your dad could just, like, hijack a plane for a little while and, like, you know, jump out of it with a bunch of money he stole or something like that.

[B]

That's the best case scenario. Very few get hurt on that one. But, like, yeah, like, he just traipsed into the airport in Tennessee, and I think there was some fluky thing that ended up getting him caught. Like, it wasn't a routine screening. And then they just fined him $50 because he said it was for target practice.

[A]

No guns in the airport. Go back to the Swarthmore, young man.

[B]

Right, sorry.

[A]

To Swarthmore. I don't know that there's any connection. I just, you know, it's where I imagine some guy who can't get it together would go, so.

[B]

Yeah. And then, ironically, I did note that Reagan's reaction to the Lenin shooting was saying, like, handgun control is not the answer. So there is another little bit of irony.

[A]

Exactly. Yeah. No, this is not a classy show. Of course. Now I have a mental image of Reagan being reached for comment in the Hobby Hospital going, handgun control is still not the answer.

[B]

You know what? I bet you're not far off. Truly. So, yeah, day of, he walks by this place and he just. It's pretty close quarters with everybody leaving. This afl, cio, Teamster talk.

[A]

He was like, hello, Teamsters. I'm going to ruin your life. Have fun with that.

[B]

Excuse me. Yeah. And he gets. He shoots four people, all of whom are associated with the President. So, yeah, you got it.

[A]

He just kind of opened fire kind of on the group as Reagan is being ushered into his car, essentially.

[B]

Yeah. And it sounds like. Because he specifically said he did not aim and that that was evidence of his lack of clarity of mind.

[A]

Do you believe that? Because I do. I do believe that. That he just kind of is like, oh, what do I do now? I guess I'll shoot this gun now, or something.

[B]

I do believe it. And I think that the lack of coherence to the whole plan, the lack of coherence to this piece. Makes sense.

[A]

Yeah. And that he's just kind of going around looking for something big to do, but it doesn't really matter what the thing is. And that he hasn't thought through.

[B]

Yeah. Because Travis Bickle had a mission.

[A]

And then I guess we get into the question of what is the difference between insanity and poor planning.

[B]

Well, kind of. And stupidity. Like.

[A]

Yeah, that one.

[B]

Because that's what I thought with Winnie Ruth Judd, like, don't put limbs in a hat box. But also, maybe you're just dumb. Sorry.

[A]

Right. Like, is this a bad choice or is this a choice of someone, like, disconnected from reality? And that's very hard to determine with some people, honestly, and what should affect.

[B]

Culpability, because if you get down to it, like, obviously, anybody who does a crime of a certain caliber is, by definition, not mentally healthy.

[A]

Yeah. That's what I. I think. And I. And, you know, this gets complicated, but I don't think that, like. Yeah, I think premeditated murder is, like, by definition, you know, if you're not motivated by, like, a huge amount of money or something like that or, like.

[B]

Principles that are really clearly like a. Yeah. I'm thinking of, like, Franz Ferdinand was not necessarily. They at least knew what they were doing and it was the plan.

[A]

But. Yeah. But murder as the sort of. As the crime and the motive.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And then we get into this difficult thing where, like, there's this sort of core belief, I think, in American history and American masculinity that violence is a sane thing to do.

[B]

Right, Right.

[A]

There's times when violence is acceptable, but there's a sort of core tenet of American masculinity that violence is just, like, a nice hobby. And I don't think that that's a sane belief system, but if you ask a lot of people, they'll say that it is.

[B]

Yeah. Like, it lives on that spectrum of. The biggest con that men committed is convincing women that anger isn't an emotion sort of thing. Like, that violence is about the most emotional thing you can do. And I feel like that kind of connects to our point that, like, it's a very mentally unhealthy thing to let violence control your action.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And yet. And yet we don't say every person is legally mentally ill.

[A]

Right.

[B]

For the purposes of the defense. Nor should we. I mean, that would be a crazy way to let people off.

[A]

We would all be dead, in a manner of speaking. Right. And then.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

With any. With all of this, it comes down to a lot of individual choices. Kind of at. In a. In a trial capacity, it seems like. Yeah.

[B]

But so, okay, so he's arrested, like, immediately. He doesn't get shot because everybody is.

[A]

Because he's just standing around, I presume, because he didn't think I had.

[B]

Well, it's so close quarters. He thought he would get shot. He was like, I was prepared to just, like, die. That probably would have been convenient for his mental state. Like, he didn't have a plan in life. He was just gonna go out in a blaze of glory.

[A]

So really, it's. It seems like a sort of. That there's just, like, a lot going on in his head and he's fastened it all to this one thing he's gonna do.

[B]

Yeah. And I think, like, a vacuum of other purposes and influences that then his mental illness filled with Jodie Foster.

[A]

But also, if it wasn't her, it would have been Christy McNichol. At a certain point, you're just a woman who existed and some guy came along and here we are, and got obsessed with you.

[B]

So they actually played Taxi Driver at the trial.

[A]

Oh, my God. How?

[B]

Like, from my understanding, they played the entirety of the movie for the jury.

[A]

That's incredible. Like, imagine you're just, like, trying. I mean, I guess it would be, like, useful information, but, like, that is a long and intense movie. Yeah, man.

[B]

And apparently, like, a big part of it was the defense using this as evidence. Like, watch him watch the movie.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

And he was just fixated.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, it is a good movie, to be fair. It's not like it's boring or something.

[B]

Right, right.

[A]

I mean, also, like, what a weird week to be like Cybill shepherd or something. You know, you're like, yeah, I don't know. Apparently the jury is watching that movie. I did a few years ago to determine if. If this presidential would be assassin is insane or not.

[B]

Anyway, all in a day's work, right? Yeah.

[A]

You can't buy publicity like that. No.

[B]

And poor Jodie Foster, she did not have to appear in person, but she gave a deposition that was taped and that also went a ways in proving his insanity. Because she said in the deposition that they did not have a relationship and she did not know him, and he had a little bit of an outbreak forced at that, and had to be removed from the courtroom. But so the test that they used at that time in the D.C. circuit and the federal courts, which is where he was tried, was this kind of middle ground test, which is the model penal code test. Again, if you're notetaking the standard there is that at the time of the act, you're suffering from mental illness and because of that, lacked capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct or lacked the capacity to conform your conduct to the law's requirements. So it's that last piece that's a little more permissive.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

That it's like you basically can't control yourself and you can't fit yourself into law abiding. Society's norms.

[A]

Which is interesting, because if you want to assassinate the President in order to impress Cody Foster, you understand that you want her to be impressed by the level of your wrongdoing.

[B]

Yeah. That's a great point.

[A]

But the desire to do it also arguably shows that you don't understand the wrong, Like, I don't know, like, the true reality of the wrongness of it. Only that it would be impressive. I do find it really interesting. Yeah.

[B]

I think if they had had just the McNaughton test, which is what they ended up going back to and making a little stricter after, then it just would have been the right or wrong, wrong element, and there wouldn't have been this like. Or you're so mentally ill that you can't conform your conduct to legal norms.

[A]

Right. Which in that case is like, maybe you understand all kinds of things, but you can't.

[B]

You just can't control yourself.

[A]

That knowledge.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Which I think is more useful.

[B]

Yeah. It could get a little permissive if we do think about it. Like, imagine a world of Hinckley esque men who are just like, I can't stop.

[A]

I don't have to imagine it. It's on Reddit.

[B]

I know. Imagine if you can.

[A]

I know it sounds over the top. You have to, I guess, draw a line somewhere, and then the question of where the somewhere is ends up being a little subjective. Because I do truly believe. Right. If you look at our president 45, 47, like, I don't think Trump actually is capable of making better choices than he is right now. Right.

[B]

At this point, certainly.

[A]

Well, that too. Yeah. And like, I know that he knows he's doing horrible things and is doing them on purpose and that the cruelty is the point. But also, like, has he ever had the capacity to be less of a horrible narcissist? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean he's not criminally liable, you know, so, like. Yeah.

[B]

And I think that brings us to a great point, which is kind of like the philosophical underpinning of the whole thing, which is like, what is the goal of punishment?

[A]

Yeah. Which is why bother having a legal system when there's such a pain.

[B]

Yeah. And also, like, what is the goal of incarceration? Because if you are found not guilty.

[A]

Which people will disagree on, it seems.

[B]

Yeah, boy. Yeah. But it's not like he was walking around because of the not guilty verdict. Like, he was incarcerated.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But it was in a mental health facility. And so it's like, if that's what we're talking about the distinction of for. Maybe I don't mind the more permissive definition as much because does that just mean that we put the Trump esque thinkers in a treatment facility.

[A]

Yeah. And now they all have to play tennis with each other until they die.

[B]

Yeah. Like, that's not. Release them back on the streets to do this again.

[A]

Yeah. God, imagine all of them just like in a secure facility, forced to play risk with each other.

[B]

I mean, I don't want to work there, but it would be nice in ways.

[A]

But we could pay the people who do work there really well.

[B]

Lots of money.

[A]

Tell me about this verdict, because were people kind of thinking as this was going on, like, oh, it'll be fine, he'll definitely be convicted. He did try to kill the president after all. Or was there a sense of like, I don't know, he does seem to have an awful lot of lawyers.

[B]

He didn't have that many lawyers.

[A]

He didn't. Okay.

[B]

No, they just called a ton of psychiatrists.

[A]

Oh, right. They just had 27 witnesses to make up for it. Yeah.

[B]

Like, the witness balance there shows that everybody assumed. Yeah. This guy tried to kill the President in broad daylight on camera.

[A]

Like, there's footage of it. You can watch it right now if you wanted to.

[B]

Yeah. And like, not that a good motive would have made a difference, but, like, for why? Like, because Jodie Foster.

[A]

Right. Like, what if he was like, well, I'm very upset about the trade deficit or something thing.

[B]

Right. Or like, maybe if I had done it because of aids.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

There's at least cause and effect.

[A]

Yeah. And that's kind of the, the inevitable Luigi Mangioni parallel of it. All right. Where like.

[B]

Oh, great point. Yeah.

[A]

Right. To me, it's like, it makes complete sense that, like, at this, at this point in time, we had. And I know that there's like plenty of people, plenty of conservatives who are like, it's terrible. It's terrible to be glamorizing an assassin, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But just how, like everyone I know and everyone who I sort of see online and like, in the sort of world that I'm in was immediately just like, protect our boy. Yeah.

[B]

And I mean, like, where is that indignation when people die every day for no reason because of these companies? So, like, that's. Yeah. Imbalanced Republicans were super upset, obviously.

[A]

And did this shock people? Was this like, kind of like an OJ Moment? Like, did people see it coming?

[B]

I don't know that I would put it to that level.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, they didn't have it live on Oprah. Nothing's at that level.

[B]

But, yeah, and the tricky thing here is, like, he definitely is not. Or at least at that point, he was not. Well, he certainly was whatever you would consider to be quote, unquote, insane, to use the term of art. Like, in that sense, it's different than OJ because it's not that anybody was saying he didn't do it.

[A]

Right, right. And that it's not, you know, based on do you believe that he did it or not? And that cultural divide, like, everyone agrees on what happened in this case. Okay.

[B]

Yeah. It's an affirmative defense. It's like, yes, I did this, but I can't be carcerally responsible for my actions. Like, the punishment is a different form. And I realized that this also more or less coincides with the Willowbrook expose. And I think that that's not an accident. So what is that? So, Geraldo Rivera.

[A]

Oh, boy. Yep. Geraldo, welcome. Sit down.

[B]

Still there? Yeah, still hanging out some hot pictures of him online in his 70s, if anyone's looking for them. But. So he did this expose in the 70s about a mental health facility, an asylum, because it really was. This marked the end of the era of asylums, and it was called Willowbrook. And it really exposed the inhumane treatment.

[A]

Because, interestingly, Reagan also, like the Reagan administration, created policy that also deinstitutionalized a lot of people. Right. Ironically.

[B]

Yeah. So I think this doesn't necessarily affect, you know, Hinckley specifically, but I'm just thinking about, like, the shift in this country from mental health institutions to incredibly expensive places. Yeah. Like that they don't really exist, but the people still exist who are potentially dangerous to themselves and others, so they can't be free to deal with their mental health until or unless they're better. But now we don't have places dedicated to that. Like, the fix was fixing the institutions.

[A]

But, like, you don't want to go back to the past where you have people being forcibly institutionalized and ending up in abusive places that they can't leave.

[B]

But now we just put them in prison.

[A]

Right. But now it's like there is no place to go if you're a threat to yourself or your family, if you can't afford it.

[B]

So we don't even call them mentally ill. So I feel like that. Yeah. That coincided with the reforms after Hinckley, which basically got rid of a lot of the options of pleading some version of insanity. So now you either can't assert it And. Or there's no other facility that you can go alternatively. And I think that those kind of dovetailed and work together to create prisons as the mental health facilities.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And what that also means is that, like, if you're someone who has someone who is a danger to you in your life or who poses a threat, or who you know is stalking you or behaving threateningly toward you, it's very difficult to know how to handle that for many reasons, but partly because if you have any, if you care about that person at all, which frequently is the case, then like, you don't want them to go to prison as their only option or for something completely terrible to happen to them or even a.

[B]

Loved one, like who's having a mental health crisis that gets to a point that you can't physically or emotionally handle it.

[A]

Yeah. Where you are not able to take care of them, but you want someone to, as opposed to, you know, the only care that exists being some form of punishment. It's. Yeah, yeah. It's not good.

[B]

It's not great. So, like, long story short, on post Hinckley reforms, there was a congressional act that made the standard higher and also got rid of some of the expert witness options. And some states went even further. So if you're familiar with Eileen Wuornos, the gal who Monster was based on.

[A]

I sure did watch cable TV growing up. Yeah.

[B]

Heck yeah. Me too.

[A]

Eileen Moore is fascinating for many reasons, but one is because when she was, you know, big in the news in the 90s, everyone was like, she's the first female serial killer. And it's like she's actually one of the first female serial killers to, you know, become a household name because she killed men outside the home. But women have been quietly being serial killers, often killing, you know, children or their patients or the elderly or just people in their care for such a long time. And so many of them don't get caught. So, you know, that's all hers was.

[B]

Arguably like a lot of them were self defense adjacent. And yeah, the, the point of connecting it to this, she did not plead insanity. But all these strictures that states put in place after Hinckley and whether they're directly related or not, it's been a couple decades now, but in Florida, where she was tried, if you don't plead insanity, you can't introduce any mental health evidence. So it becomes this like, damned if you do, damned if you don't. So it's like if you don't throw yourself into this trap, that really would Control your legal strategy and any testimony that you would give, then you can't add any evidence of what your state of mind was or what you might have been suffering. And in her case, that was really key.

[A]

Right. Because, like, the story basically is that she was a survivor of a lot of sexual abuse and then was working as a sex worker and killed, you know, some number of men. And to me, one of the interesting questions has always been, like, how many of them just actually did have it coming? Because, like, I can see a scenario where all of them did. Honestly, if you look at it from.

[B]

A sort of battered woman syndrome adjacent defense.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That, like, her nervous system was super heightened when it came to male sexual partners doing xyz. And here's mental health evidence of why, like, you couldn't do that in Florida at the time. So.

[A]

Yeah. And that's at least an interesting potential line of defense. And to not have that available to you also seems bummer. I hate to use the word, but Problematic.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. Better than my word.

[A]

I like them both. Yeah. But it's this interesting thing of, like, you let you lose the ability to express the reality of the client's mental situation if you have that kind of restriction.

[B]

Right. It's really bizarre. And I know you have talked about, like, junk science evidence and some of the traps adjacent to that. And I feel like this fits into that whole constellation of what you can say, what you can't say. The lack of uniformity of what rules we're working with at any place in time is really tricky. And then. So a lot of states now have actually gotten rid of. Not a lot of states. Some states have gotten rid of the insanity defense altogether. There's also, like, an advent of this new thing that's guilty but mentally ill, which then you still go to prison.

[A]

That's just like, when someone's like, how are you doing? You're like, well, I feel guilty, but also mentally ill.

[B]

So that asterisk.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

I don't know. So basically, like, if you get that in your verdict, you go to prison, but then you get to see somebody for a screening to see if you need inpatient care, which I don't know. At that point, maybe it's 601.

[A]

Right. And then, like, what kind of inpatient care are you gonna get?

[B]

Right.

[A]

Then the prison system seems like the option that you're left with.

[B]

It's also.

[A]

I mean, this makes me think of this, you know, the 1970s death penalty moratorium. And my understanding is that a big part of the rationale for that. Was that like Furman v. Georgia or something like that. Or the stated rationale was that we have to, like, if we have the death penalty being implemented, like, differently for different reasons across different states and for different defendants, then, like, how can we swear to the constitutionality of something that's being applied in such a kind of random and arbitrary manner? And it feels like you're kind of saying the same thing.

[B]

Boy, you just pulled a thread on the whole system. Yeah, yeah. And obviously, if you take it a little bigger, there's the whole states rights thing, which is. It drives me nuts. And it is the rallying cry of like, every unjust cause ever.

[A]

Right. And states rights historically is like code for the state's rights to be racist.

[B]

Yeah. Finish the sentence.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

For better or worse, on the insanity defense, we had both federal and state responses. So, like, everybody was really whipped up into the same frenzy at the state and federal level. And I know you and I have talked about, like, how infrequently those knee jerk legislative responses tend to address the problem that they're knee jerking to.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I think this is a good example.

[A]

I do understand how it would be shocking. Like, I imagine if you're like a random citizen, there's been this trial of this guy who attempted on purpose to assassinate the president, and now you're hearing that he's not going to prison. And also, I'm sure, are being told implicitly and also out loud by, you know, all the news sources for whom this is like a huge bombshell, that, like, maybe he'll be released at any time. We don't know he's not going to prison. We don't have a sentencing guideline.

[B]

I'm sure if anybody wanted to rile up their voter base, that that would be the thing to say. And so I'm sure many did say it, that, like, do you want to live in the this country?

[A]

Like, I have like, Pentecostal preacher cadence in the back of my head, you know, like, and I just. The other day I read news of a man who tried to shoot our president and he may be out of the slammer in six weeks.

[B]

Absolutely. And we know those guys loved Reagan. So, like, of course that was the word on the street. And then, like, for the record, Hinckley was in essence, incarcerated. Like, he was not free to leave the facility. And every bit of freedom that he got back was a court hearing. So it's like, if he wanted to be allowed to go to an art therapy thing once a month, it was A whole hearing and everybody came out of the woodwork and were like, this guy tried to kill Reagan.

[A]

Well, and also from what I remember, cause this has been such a long story, but that sometime in the past 10 years he was whatever the equivalent of parole is. And of course that was a huge story. And that the terms of his release meant that he like had to stay a certain distance away from like any ex presidents, which is funny. But then you think about the fact that he was, I think, in the custody of his mother who lived in Virginia, and you're like, well, there have to be kind of a lot of presidents around actually.

[B]

You're absolutely right. And it actually was an issue because his mom was in like a pseudo retirement community, if memory serves, and it abutted with like a golf course and who loves to golf. Former presidents love to golf. Yes. So there actually was a question of like, oh, God damn it, like, how do we make this work? But he was released like 2022, I want to say, and a lot of people pitched a fit about it, but he was in inpatient, essentially incarcerated for 35 years. And he really like the fact that he, he now has comments turned off on his YouTube channel, but he didn't for a long while. And the fact that he fielded what I'm sure he got in the comments section and didn't lose his mind, to me is pretty good evidence that he is stabilized.

[A]

Yeah, well, and also it's. And this gets into the question of, as you were saying, what is the purpose of incarceration? What's the purpose of institutionalization in this case? And I think that if we're going to pretend to be the country that we like pretending to be and to have the values that we like to pretend to have, we have to at least, least go along with the claim that we do want people to heal, if they possibly can. Do we want someone to be able to like live a nice life when they are no longer a threat? Or can that only happen when they have repaid their debt to society? And if so, how do they do it? And who is society? And is it only repaid when every single person thinks that they've suffered enough? Because it can't be that. Because there's always going to be someone somewhere who thinks it's not enough.

[B]

And those people are motivated by, I would say, non utilitarian motives and things that we wouldn't want ruling our sentencing.

[A]

Yeah, this all comes down to sort of what we imagine government to be, for which I realize there's a lot of difference of opinion on that. But I feel like, to me, this gets into the area of, like, as cynical as I believe myself to have become, I'm really not. I'm really just a cockeyed optimist. I. Underneath. And I truly. Right. And like. And that's a great to be. And I. And I do believe that, like, because we, you know, we know partly from being students of history that there are times when this can happen and has happened, that the law can, you know, not just try and prevent things from happening or try and, you know, contain people who pose a threat to themselves or others or to sort of, you know, the law is not just an instrument of control, but can also. We can use it to try and conceptualize better things. Yeah. And how to. How to facilitate people potentially becoming who they can be rather than who they've been forced to become. And that it's, you know, you can't expect it to work all the time or even a lot of the time. But that the potential to bring out what people are capable of in the best way is also worth trying to enshrine.

[B]

I think those are beautiful points. And I really think it's the only way to be if we want to move forward at all. Because fear just rots your brain.

[A]

Yeah. Literally, I could do this all day. And someday soon we will. Where can people enjoy some of your work? And also, since we're putting this out in August, what's a flavor of August that you recommend?

[B]

Find me. I'm KZ Joybrennan on most of the social media. I'm mostly on Instagram and I also have a website that's mkzjoybrennon.com and of flavor of August. See, you're asking somebody with, like, I'm autism Spectrum and I. I'm one who, like, I eat about three things. So.

[A]

Night. What are your three things? If you. If you wanna.

[B]

I just found these, like, great frozen yogurt, mint chocolate chip ice cream, pop things.

[A]

Nice.

[B]

And I ate, like, three of them yesterday. So I'm sure that I'll keep up until August because I'm a creature of habits, so.

[A]

But yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Some people need to be reminded of ice cream.

[B]

Does that answer the question or did you mean it in a fun, esoteric way and I went for ice cream?

[A]

No, I. I mean it however you want. I mean, I. I've been talking up sweet corn. I think sweet corn.

[B]

Okay, perfect.

[A]

Corn is so present that it's easy to forget that, like, you can just, like, add a little corn Add a.

[B]

Little corn to your life.

[A]

Add a little corn to your life. I made ramen today and I threw in a bunch of sweet corn and like, you're crazy. My God, is that good? I am crazy.

[B]

Summer girls.

[A]

I'll. I'll go to a movie on a weekday. I'm crazy. Oh, man.

[B]

Gotta get out of here. Execution.

[A]

That was beautiful.

[B]

Thank you so much.

[A]

This is great for a bonus shortly and I can't wait.

[B]

Oh, heck yeah.

[A]

And that is our episode. Thank you you so much for listening. And thank you, of course, to our guest, Mackenzie Joy Brennan. You can find her at mkzjoybrennon on the social media network of your choice. And her website is mkzjoybrennon.com. thank you to Miranda Zickler for editing and producing. Thank you to Carolyn Kendrick for editing and producing. We'll see you next time. Sam Ra.