The organization of the book is different from the previous books, since it is more of a textbook type than a novel. It has seven chapters, introducing some basic knowledge and elements concerning insanity defense. Each chapter has more than fifty questions, with answers below each question, and some case examples. 

   Reading a hundred-odd pages of book is not easy, especially when there's no grotesque plots that might catch the readers' attention. But the questions raised in the book are some of the most confusing and controversial questions concerning insanity defense.

   The last two weeks we've studied a case of a bipolar, Todd, in one of the discussion classes. He was diagnosed as an bipolar since early in his adolescence, and was then sent to a mental institution where he received necessary medication and treatment. However, after the treatment which always worked as tranquiler, he felt his freedom of mind and thoughts were limited, thus he refused further medication and treatment. Since the state law gave him the right to receive the cure voluntarily, the mental institution didn't have the right to hold him longer against his will. He was then released to the community and then became a drifter. He was then sent to jail several times for breaking the laws. One of our discussion question is, whether his mental state as a bipolar could excuse his action of committing a crime.

  

   My answer is yes, since it was clearly shown in the documentary presented that Todd could not tell right from wrong because of his mental illness. When he committed the crime, he didn't know what he was doing was actually wrong, and it fitted in the definition of insanity defense during the trial. However some of my classmates held different opinions with me, since they believed that when necessary treatment was provided, Todd chose to not accept it, thus it was his fault for continuing suffering from bipolar and it could not be an excuse when he committed a criminal act.

   The same question was raised in Yates' case. As a mother of five children, aging from one to seven, she drowned all of them one day when her husband was out and she was left home alone with the kids. After she killed all of her children, she called her husband and the police to report her crime. Though her attorney tried to plea not guilty by the reason of insanity, she claimed that she was not insane and she deserved any punishment that was decided by the court. 

   The reason why she had done such brutal and inhumane thing to her own children was that she was suffering from postportum depression and other mental illness for a long period of time, and she became a follower of preacher Michael Woronieckis, who kept reminding her of her failure as a mother and her sin as a woman, and who said that she had to free her children from the torture of hell by killing them and sending them to the God. Her identity as a Christian in her earlier life also aggravated her belief in being a sinner herself. 

   During the first trial, the prosecutor argued that she clearly knew her action of killing her own children was wrong, as she admitted herself during the investigation. She was then sentenced to life sentence in jail. However the first trail was overturned when some reporters found out that the one of the prosecutor's evidence, that an episode of Law and Order had the similar scene in which a mom drowned her babies had a great influence on Yates' carrying out of the crime, was indeed false, since that episode was never aired. A second trial was approved, and Yates was found not guilty by the reason of insanity. 

   However, when medication was provided to Yates before she committed the crime to cure her mental illness, Yates simply refused it because she though it would show her weakness and thus be criticized by Michael. People therefore argued that it was Yates' own fault not receiving cure, which made her mental state worse and then led to the tragedy. 

   The book didn't answer directly to this question, which meant that it had been long debated and hasn't had a clear answer yet. 

   However, if based solely on the definition of insanity defense, Yates' is qualified to plea not guilty by the reason of insanity, regardless her rejection towards medication that was provided to cure her mental illness.

   Many other classic and controversial cases similar to this one were presented in the book, which made my day filled with questions not easy to answer.

   Still, I felt reading these cases and books was indeed very inspiring. And the environment of computer lab plus the big Mac I'm using right now add to my affection towards the courses I'm taking.

   All for today.

   

   Happy birthday to my dear grandma and hope my parents are having a good time in Hubei.