Hello Alexabelle

I really enjoyed reading the media article that you provided for this week’s discussion. You
asked if it was worth that the insanity defence failed and I would like to say that I believe it was
warranted. First, in the lecture video Professor Hamm mentions that major cases may proceed
even if there is an insanity defence as compared to minor cases that are usually dismissed in such
cases. This case was a major since it involved capital murder and had even caught the attention
of the whole nation. Therefore the option was proceeding with an adjudicative competence test.
This would be able to determine whether the defendant was in the right mental state to continue
with the court proceedings. In addition, though Routh who was the defendant in the case had
mental illness it was enough to send him to a state mental hospital. From the lecture video, the
prof states that mental illness is not sufficient to rule adjudicative incompetence but just an
additional step in determining incompetence. Therefore the argument that Routh had been
diagnosed with mental illness was not sufficient to declare him incompetent. During his trial,
Routh was aware of the mistakes he had done and the consequences that may result from his
guilty verdict since he confessed several times and even apologized for the crime he did. This
shows that he was in the right mental state and that he could stand trial.