I was just reading this post. I've said before, but maybe not on this site, that I fail to see any logical basis for the verdict of "not guilty by reason of temporary insanity."

Apart from the points that the good Doctor brings up, my reasoning is based more in self-preservation. The concept of "temporary insanity" just confounds me. Personally, I'd rather be walking down the street with someone who I know is a total wingnut than with someone who, according to those criminal defense lawyers, could apparently snap at any given moment and start hacking people to pieces, most likely near post offices for some reason. That's why I always go to the post office alone. :-)

Frankly, I'd argue that this supposed temporary type of insanity is all the more reason to get that person off the streets for good.