I guess our enemy terrorists are just depressed people in dire need of medications.

Our judicial system needs help. The scales of justice are enormously tipped on the side of the bad guys. Since Andrea Yates and her attorneys were allowed to shop around for the jury they wanted, why can’t the prosecutors? If a multiple child-killer can keep going back to the well to come up with a verdict that pleases her (and keeps her out of jail), why can’t the state? Oh, that’s right: double jeopardy. We only give the judicial system one chance at a guilty verdict. The murderers get multiple chances, there’s no double jeopardy rule for a not guilty verdict.

I truly believe that there are many people who fail to believe that there is true evil in the world. In our lifetime, we have watched women drown their babies, whether their names are Susan Smith or Andrea Yates; we have heard people describe terrorists as “freedom fighters”; we watch people describe our president as a Nazi storm trooper; we continually see good described as bad, right defined as wrong.

Here’s a simple solution to the unnerving spectacle of a woman drowning her five children and getting away with it: let’s throw out “not guilty by reason of insanity.” No one doubts that Andrea Yates drowned her children, least of all Andrea Yates. But even crazy people have to take responsibility for their actions, at least when they’ve recovered. To suggest that someone is innocent because they hear voices, or fight depression, or suffer from panic attacks, is to pretend that the actual crime didn’t occur.

We desperately need a new verdict in America that is fair, accurate, and sensible: GUILTY BUT INSANE. Sure, sick people do sick things. If a jury is convinced someone is mentally ill, allow them to return a guilty but insane verdict. That way, the killer can get the treatment she needs and if and when she gets healthy again, she should serve her time behind bars, like everybody should do.

Anything short of that is the real definition of insanity.