It doesn’t seem likely to me that they jury was in any doubt whether he committed the crime.
Well, it hinges on exactly what "he" means, doesn't it? Clearly his body and brain took the criminal actions, but apparently the jury believed that the "person" wasn't responsible for what the body and brain did.
If we based the consequences to the criminal of crime on restitution, taking the considerations of deterrence (including rehabilitation) and punishment out of the legal system proper, I think these problems would be clearer. If my brakes fail and I hit someone, I would still be on the hook for the consequences, without regard to whether I was blameworthy, and instances where a person's brain "fails" seem similar to me. Of course, killing is a problem area for restitution-based legal systems...
Well, it hinges on exactly what "he" means, doesn't it? Clearly his body and brain took the criminal actions, but apparently the jury believed that the "person" wasn't responsible for what the body and brain did.
If we based the consequences to the criminal of crime on restitution, taking the considerations of deterrence (including rehabilitation) and punishment out of the legal system proper, I think these problems would be clearer. If my brakes fail and I hit someone, I would still be on the hook for the consequences, without regard to whether I was blameworthy, and instances where a person's brain "fails" seem similar to me. Of course, killing is a problem area for restitution-based legal systems...