RIGHT FROM WRONG?
One of Andrea Yates's lawyers was on Today this morning. He was talking about how in order to prove that Andrea Yates id insane, it is not neccesary to prove that she didn't know that everyone else thought it was wrong, only that she herself didn't think she was doing anything wrong. Naturally, Katie (let's generate more awarenes for PPP) Couric failed to pounce on that. The whole tone of the interview was "how are you going to convince these bloodthirsty luddites in the jury to come to the conclusion that we all know is correct, that Andrea Yates is insane and ought not be punished, despite the prosecution's fetishistic obsession with the fact that there are five dead children"
Do I need to say how ridiculous it it? If I think a rich person has too much money, does that make it OK for me to steal his car, even though I know society disapproves of it? Talk about Pandora's Box... This is the rock bottom of the moral relativism slippery slope -- if in my mind I don't think it's wrong, then you can't punish me for it, even if I know everyone else thinks it's wrong.
Let's hope the jury doesn't adopt this ridiculous standard. I still don't think Yates ought to be put to death, but let's not create phony standards that would make it impossible to punish anybody.