I personally believe a lot of the problem lies with what really, in my country, simply amounts to very old thinking and legal concepts from, really, like, the 1700s or so. There is good and there is evil. If I assert that a law was broken as the DA then, it was broken, because, what I say is always the truth. Even thought it isn't. And if I say a law was broken, there will be a prosecution to the fullest possible extent of all laws. Nothing else matters because I don't care about anything else. I care about winning. Scoreboard.

The insanity defense is a "scam," according to one not especially bright Oregon prosecutor I recently read an interview with. He is just not a very bright person, sadly. And I believe here in my state that, unfortunately, there are more than a few of those.

The definition of "justice," whatever on earth that actually is, from the era in which the constitution was penned does not account for our current understanding of neuroscience and precisely how moral decision-making in the human brain actually occurs. As long as simple-minded, uninquisitive people continue to view justice the way it was looked at in 1776, we have no shot in America of evolving on this issue.