Two Standards

Army Pfc David Lawrence is guilty of cold blooded murder of a Taliban commander.

According to Army supplied psychiatrists, Pfc Lawrence “suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia and therefore lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.”

Regardless, he was court martialed.

Civilian Jared L. Loughner was charged with the cold blooded murder of six civilians and injuring twelve others including Arizona US Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Experts said Loughner has schizophrenia and consequently was sent to a Federal facility for treatment before subsequent consideration by the Judge to determine if he can participate in his defense in the future.

Lawrence pleaded guilty saying “I went into the cell and I shot him in the face, your honor,” and “I disappointed God, I harmed my country’s relationship with Afghanistan, and I disappointed my family.”

Loughner was taken from court after an outburst.

The law is a mismash of standards, facts and venues designed to deliver fairness and justice to all parties. Perhaps an impossible task.

Both of these men committed heinous acts. I struggle to decide what would be appropriate punishment for such acts.

I am not sure how the facts materially differ in the case of Loughner and Lawrence but there are differences.

Consider the great difficulty inherent in attempting to deliver justice after reading more about each in today’s news.

Loughner per NYTimes today.

Does the following editorial reverse symmetry confuse you too?

“Lawrence” search of NYTimes today 5/25.

“Loughner” search of the Denver Post today 5/25.

POST SCRIPT:

Why is there no article AT ALL searchable on NYTimes.com about Pfc David Lawrence other than this PDF available for purchase?

Is it because the charges of political prosecution by their favored President is true and they want to use their immense editorial power, that of omission, to minimize the heat on their man?

Consider these words at the very end of the home page of pfcdavidlawrence.org/

Thank you for your interest in this case.  The continuing prosecution of PFC David Lawrence is an important matter in the on-going evolution of military justice.  Firstly, David’s case appears to be the first instance in the history of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that a military Sanity Board has determined that an accused service member was not mentally responsible for an alleged homicide.  By extension, this also appears to be the first military homicide case where a Sanity Board determination of not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility has been ignored by military prosecutors who insist on putting David and his family through the emotional and financial distress of a general court-martial.

Secondly, the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity is an affirmative defense which completely shifts the burden of proof at trial to PFC Lawrence and his attorneys.  In a case where the Army’s own medical experts have already unanimously determined that PFC Lawrence was not mentally responsible for his alleged misconduct, PFC Lawrence will not be considered innocent until proven guilty at his court-martial.  Rather, once the issue of lack of mental responsibility is raised at his court-martial, PFC Lawrence will be required to prove that he lacked mental responsibility for his alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence . . . to a military jury (panel).

Here are three additional facts that you should know about David’s upcoming general court-martial:

1.  A unanimous decision of the jury (panel) is not required in military criminal cases.  A two-third majority of the jury (panel) is enough to convict a service member in any branch of the U.S. military of any offense, including pre-meditated murder.

2.  The Army general at Fort Carson who decided to send David’s case forward to a general court-martial after the Army’s expert psychiatrists determined that David was not mentally responsible for his misconduct, will be the same Army general who hand-picks David’s military jury (panel).

3.  The Army general who forwarded David’s case to a general court-martial did so on the advice of his legal advisor known in the military as a Staff Judge Advocate.  This same legal advisor will be the same person who recommends to the Army general exactly which Soldiers he (the general) should select for David’s jury (panel).  This same legal advisor supervises the chief prosecutor in the case of United States v. Lawrence and is also the supervisor of the Article 32 Investigating Officer who concluded in his report that there are “No grounds to believe PFC Lawrence was not mentally responsible for his alleged misconduct.”

Again, thank you for your interest in this case.  If you are disturbed by the facts of this case, please consider assisting the Lawrence family.  PFC David Lawrence is on trial for his life: literally.  The minimum sentence for the offense of which David is charged is life in prison.  The financial burdens of David’s case are monumental and far more than the Lawrence family can bear alone.