The case of Twinkie Defense needs to be discussed

                                                                                         

The so called "Twinkie defense" can be somehow called a far relative of the under the influence cases, but it is unique and definitely deserves some space for a review.

In jurisprudence, "Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for a criminal defendant's claims that some unusual biological component factored into the causes or motives of an alleged crime. According to this defense, the biological factor influenced the defendant's responsibility, and therefore he is not completely responsible for actions which violated the law, or his criminal liability should be reduced to a lesser offense. While it is considered to be serious "Twinkie defense" implies that the specific biological factor is not the one that most people would view as sufficient to account for criminal activity, like the effects of allergies, minor stimulants such as coffee and nicotine, sugar and/or vitamins.

The term was coined by the press after the case of Dan White, who assassinated Mayor George Moscone and the first openly gay politician Supervisor Harvey Milk, on November 27, 1978. Two psychiatrists had stated that a recent consumption of junk food and sugar-laden soft drinks like Coca-Cola, had an impact on White’s psychic condition and, combined with his depression, finally led to the killings. Twinkies were never mentioned on that case, but Dan White actually "won", his defense successfully persuaded the jury that White's capacity for rational thought had been diminished. The jury found White incapable of the premeditation required for a murder conviction, and instead he was convicted in voluntary manslaughter. As a result the city of San Francisco exploded with the White Night Riots, a series of violent gay rights protests and demonstrations.

The negative reaction from the White’s case actually has an impact and in 1982 "Twinkie defense" was abolished. The term "diminished capacity" was replaced by "diminished actuality" by Proposition 8 and the California legislature. The new term was referring not to the capacity to have a specific intent, but to whether the defendant actually had the required intent to commit the crime with which he or she was charged.

"Twinkie defense" of course wasn’t meant to be a serious law term. But if we take a more detailed look such type of defense has sense. It is true that some types of products can cause biological changes that will influence behavior. In case of Dan White his rapid change from healthy life to junk food combined with heavy depression could have caused some lack of mental stability. But the main question is who is then to blame? The companies that produce junk food could be charged, but they will step away just with few warning words on the package. And it’s actually not their fault, when someone takes a bottle of sleeping pills you don’t charge the pharmacy that sold the pills. Basically the only one who is to blame in the over consumption of the un-healthy food is the "Twinkie protected" person itself. Today everyone is aware of the unhealthy food and the health consequences, still if a person doesn’t care than no one else is to blame for his mental condition.

About the author:
For more information regarding Criminal Lawyers, Negligence, Defense Lawyers and Lawsuits please visit: www.lawyerahead.ca

Article Source: http://www.Free-Articles-Zone.com