insanity.

[update: whoops, em0 already posted this. but i'm going to go on a tangent.]

priest crucifies nun, claiming she was possessed by demons and that the crucifixion was "justified." however, he admitted that he faced excommunication as well as prosecution, and was seeking a "good lawyer."

speaking of insane... could he get off the insanity defense according to new york law (sorry, but the free exercise clause of the first amendment isn't going to help him)?

NOTE: I KNOW THIS HAPPENED IN ROMANIA. JUST HUMOR ME FOR A MOMENT.

since i am studying for the bar, i will write a barbri-style essay on this topic, so it will appear that i am hard at work.

The first issue is whether the priest may be charged with first degree murder?

Under common law, murder is an unlawful killing with "malice aforethought." New York classifies first degree murder as intentional murder with certain special circumstances. One of these "special circumstances" is if the defendant committed a torture murder.

Here, the priest intended to kill the nun, and he gagged the nun and nailed her to a cross to die a slow and painful death. This is a "torture murder." [Update: HOLD ON... after reading emily0's account below, it seems that the priest only intended to perform an exorcism. if death is essential to a successful exorcism, then he still has the intent necessary for first degree murder. but in the event that exorcism doesn't require the killing of the subject, he can still be convicted of murder... albeit second degree... under the felony-murder rule. in the execution - no pun intended - of the exorcism, he abducted the nun, who died before her safe return, thus committing first degree kidnapping. an act qualifies as an abduction if the victim is hidden in a place where she is not likely to be found. also, he can be convicted of second degree murder in the "highly reckless muder" category.]

So the priest may be charged with first degree murder if, in his eyes, exorcism requires death to be successful. But he can only be charged with second degree murder if exorcism doesn't require death.

The second issue is whether the priest can successfully raise the insanity defense.

Insanity is an affirmative defense in New York, where the defendant needs to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. New York uses a combination of the M'Naughten Test and the Model Penal Code test for insanity. The M'Naughten test is as follows: At the time of his conduct, the defendant, by reason of mental disease or defect, lacked the ability to either (i) know the wrongfulness of his actions or (ii) understand the nature or quality of his actions. The Model Penal Code test is as follows: The defendant, by reason of mental disease or defect, lacked the substantial capacity to either (i) appreciate the criminality of his actions or (ii) conform his conduct to the requirements of law. In New York, the test is as follows: A person is not criminally liable for his conduct if, at the time of the conduct, by reason of mental disease or defect, he lacked capacity to (i) know or appreciate the nature and consequences of his actions or (ii) that his conduct was wrong.

Here, the priest appreciated the nature and consequences of his actions. He knew that, despite his claims that his actions were "just" from a religious standpoint, he knew that the nature and consequences of his conduct would result in him being prosecuted, excommunicated and that he would need a "good lawyer." And the fact that he thought that he may be excommunicated, that proves that he knew his actions were "wrong." He can't claim that he thought it was proper by church doctrine if he knew his actions might result in excommunication.

Hence, using the insanity defense would be futile.

YOU MAY ALL GO BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM. thank you.

[Actually... ASSHOLE PRESIDENT, if you're out there, you get the question: May the other nuns be charged with first degree murder? Second degree murder?]