The danger of being invisible

Post Reply New Topic

There is a big murder case in the news right now centered around a man named Robert Durst and his suspected involvement in the murder of his long time friend, Susan Berman, who prosecutors claim he ambushed and shot execution style, perhaps for knowing too much about the disappearance of his wife.

To avoid questioning on the disappearance of his wife, Mr. Durst had,at one point moved to Texas and assumed the identity of a woman, during which period he murdered his neighbor, chopped the guy to pieces, and dumped them in the river.

A murder he was aquitted of after the defence successfully argued that he acted in self defence and his behavior was the result of Asperger's Syndrome.

When ordinary Aspergians remain invisible it opens the doors for sociopaths like Mr. Durst to exploit the ignorance of the general public on Asperger's Syndrome and ASDs in general, not only avoid incarceration for horrific crimes, but horribly slander us.

Here is the wikipedia article on him.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst

ASD needs to stop being a valid defense for crimes.

He was diagnosed by a psychologist hired by the defense with Aspergers, and the "Aspergers Defense" and it worked in getting him acquitted in 2004
"Mystery Of Robert Durst" CBS news 2004

So far all of the descriptions of him on the news I have seen are "eccentric" which is not great.

I believe what happened in 2004 is not a bad thing and maybe a good thing ATM for the community. The acquittals are being looked at unfavorably so anything that helped him get acquitted is not going to be looked at favorably. Lots of questions going forward, will the "Aspergers Defense" be used again, and if it is used will it be successful, and if it is used how will the media describe AS?. Worst result I foresee is increased "validation" for the AS/HFA fake disease and Aspergers not an excuse for acting like a spoiled socially ret*d brat meme's.

Ugh an abuser. Maybe he didn't kill his wife and she probably disappeared just to get away from him and perhaps changed her identity. I would think he disguised himself so he wouldn't get caught. Sorry but after reading the part that he physically abused his wife really threw me off and I have no sympathy for him. I don't care for his reason for it. They all have excuses for why they did it. He also stole identities too,ugh. I know he did it to escape his past so he won't get caught.

Here is I guy that never had a finical worry in his entire life. And yet, he's going off and stealing chicken sandwiches from a convenience store and urinating on a candy stand. I mean, seriously, Why can't you just behave yourself and just enjoy life. For God-sakes man, you're a millionaire.

The legal system is broken. The outcome of a trial depends 99% on the skill and preparation of the lawyer, and 1% (if that) on the actual guilt or innocence of the accused. Our prisons are full of people who no rational person would view as criminal, while you can get away with nearly anything if you can afford a really good lawyer.

The real problem is not the Aspergers defense or any of the other imaginative excuses that people come up with from time to time. The real problem is that courtrooms exist in a sort of alternate reality, thanks to an arcane miasma of rules and procedures that make it impossible to render a true verdict with any sort of reliability.

The autism defense is sickening.

I agree.

A defense lawyer really is supposed to come up with the defense most likely to sway the jury positively toward their client. They will (and technically, should) continue using it as long as it works. It is not their responsibility to weigh the social ramifications of a particular defense and not use one that will have negative outcomes for people other than their client. Making that sort of decision would go against their responsibility if it would cause them to refrain from a defense that would help their client. They are not supposed to favor the general public over their client.

So it all comes down to juries. Defense lawyers will stop using it as a defense when it stops working. And it will continue to work as long as ordinary, law abiding AS people remain invisible. When NT jury members are weighing the plausibility of the Aspergers defense when they hear it in court and believing that it really does what the defense lawyer says it does, it's because they don't know they have AS coworkers,neighbors,relatives etc. to weigh it against.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/10/the_geek_defense.html


If members of the jury were aware that they had personally come across AS people who would never be a slave to such impulsive behaviour, they would be less likely to acquit. They'd also be less likely to harbor and spread the terrible meme that 'Aspies gonna murder, they just can't help it'.

A lawyer is the only professional whose code of ethics REQUIRES him to lie. He is considered to have committed malfeasance if he neglects to tell any lie that might possibly sway the jury in favor of his client. The same goes for prosecutors, though in their case, they lie to sway the jury against the defendant.

Politicians routinely lie, but that's regarded as dishonest if it's discovered. And we all lie at times, but again, it's regarded as a character flaw. Lawyers, however, MUST lie or risk being sued by their own clients and reprimanded by the court for failing to provide their clients with the best possible representation.

It's all part of our broken legal system.