Sir, - The longest criminal trial in this State's legal history has recorded a guilty verdict on Brendan O'Donnell. The alternative to this verdict was not not guilty, but guilty but insane. Since the court decision, a debate has flourished over the airwaves and in the print media regarding the distinction between evil acts and acts of insanity.
In my opinion, requiring 12 lay members of the jury to adjudicate on this academic point is both unfair and unreasonable. Can the cold blooded killing of innocents be rationalised as anything other than acts of insanity? On the other hand, given that murder is an act of insanity, can this in itself absolve or mitigate responsibility for such outrages? Is society not entitled to the same degree of protection from an insane convicted murderer to that of an "evil" convicted murderer?
Common sense would suggest that if, in court, the accused admits responsibility for a crime then this should be interpreted as a guilty plea, ie, no trial should be necessary. Commonsense should also suggest that after sentencing by the court, it would be at the discretion of the psychiatric authorities within the prison system to refer prisoners for treatment where appropriate, ie, the same procedure followed as with physical illness. - Yours, etc.,
Brownstown,
Ratoath,
Co Meath.