The 7 Most Baffling Criminal Defenses (That Sort of Worked)
Let's face it, people will say anything to get out of going to jail. For instance, stats show that less than one percent of insanity pleas actually work, since for every one guy who truly has something broken in his brain, there are at least 99 scumbags who're just making shit up.
Here are seven of the most bizarre criminal defenses ever mounted in court... some of which are made even more bizarre by the fact that they actually got off.
#7.
The Matrix Defense
The Crime:
In July of 2002, Tonda Lynn Ansley of Hamilton, Ohio shot her landlady in the head. This is generally fatal.
The Defense:
Ansley told police, "They commit a lot of crimes in The Matrix." Following her lead, Ansley's attorney reasoned that the "our world is just an illusion generated by our machine overlords" argument was bulletproof and used it as the cornerstone of an insanity defense. They claimed that Ansley thought her landlady was part of a scheme to "brainwash and murder" her while in reality everyone was presumably living in pods of red goo.
Did it Work?
All too well. Ansley's defense was able to prove that she believed she was inside a computer simulation, and as such felt she was entitled to waste anyone around her that could possibly prove a threat. A jury of her peers found her not guilty by reason of mental defect.
On the surface this case seems to echo John Hinckley's famous "Taxi Driver Defense," but there are a few subtle differences we would like to point out: Hinckley claimed he tried to kill President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster by emulating the character of Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. Tonda Lynn Ansley, on the other hand, shot her landlady in the face because she saw Keanu Reeves jump over buildings and stop bullets with his mind in The Matrix. We feel Ansley went the extra mile.
Note that this defense was so successful that it was used a year later by Vadim Mieseges of San Francisco for, you guessed it, murdering his landlady. Legislation to rename "The Matrix Defense" to the "Kill Your Landlady, Everyone's Doing It, Defense" is still pending.
#6.
Homicidal Somnambulism a.k.a. the Sleepwalking Defense
The Crime:
On May 23, 1987, Kenneth Parks drove 14 miles to his in-laws' house and brutally attacked them, fatally stabbing his mother-in-law. He then hopped back in the car and took himself to the police station to surrender, telling them "I think I may have killed some people," which is just the sort of thing you want to be uncertain about when surrounded by cops.
The Defense:
Parks claimed he had no recollection of any of the events of the night in question, and could only remember waking up in police custody. His defense counsel proposed that he had committed the murder while sleepwalking and therefore could not be held responsible for his actions (Parks had evidently been dreaming about his mother-in-law blowing a huge lead on Family Feud).
The sleepwalking defense is normally used to escape blame for things like pissing in the sink, so prosecutors found it a little far fetched, a phrase which here means "That's seriously the best he could come up with?"
Did it Work?
Not to take Parks at his word, doctors and detectives ran an Electroencephalography (EEG) scan to check his story. For those of you unfamiliar with an EEG scan, it consists of attaching multiple electrodes to the head and measuring neuron firing activity in the brain. It also resembles anime tentacle brain rape.
The results of the EEG showed that in fact Parks had abnormal brain activity indicative of extreme parasomnia, a dissociative sleep disorder that can lead to anything from night terrors to night stabbings.
Given these results, Parks's unwavering testimony and no discernible motive for the crime, Parks was acquitted of murder and never invited to spend the night at anyone's house ever again.
#5.
Trans(gender) Panic Defense
The Crime:
On October 4, 2002, a transsexual woman named Gwen Araujo was tortured and murdered by three men who had sex with her, while somehow unaware of her biological orientation (either her male genitalia had been disguised by a Romulan cloaking device or her attackers weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier--evidence supports the latter).
The Defense:
The defendants claimed they were enraged to insanity when they realized that Araujo had man parts. Whereas most people would've had a couple more drinks and a hot shower, these gentlemen decided the most appropriate reaction would be a brutal murder by way of shovels and pickaxes. Apparently there is no greater trauma than a blowjob from a transsexual (an experience Cracked writers refer to as "Wednesday").
Her name is Stanley.
Did it Work?
Yes and no. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, essentially indicating that a room of 12 people couldn't decide whether killing someone for having weird genitals was wrong.
In the second trial, the defense attorney realized that none of the jurors were drooling into cups or wearing special "indoor helmets" and abandoned the Trans Panic Defense in favor of a more reasoned, less retarded approach. This probably seemed like less of a good idea when the murderers were quickly found guilty.
#4.
The Idiot Defense
The Crime:
Richard M. Scrushy, the founder of healthcare service provider HealthSouth, was charged with violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which in essence punishes corporations for routinely dicking over their investors a la Enron. Five of HealthSouth's Chief Financial Officers pled guilty to fraud charges, and in turn pointed the finger at Scrushy as the ringleader of the firm's unethical douchebaggery.
Also: Weird, right?
The Defense:
Scrushy's lawyers claimed he was completely ignorant of any wrongdoing, arguing that as head of a major corporation, his attention was diverted from trivial matters (accounts, shareholders, human resources, white collar crime) so that he could be free to focus on the more important aspects of high-level management (golfing, sleeping on huge piles of money).
So they essentially had Scrushy walk into the courtroom like Ricky Ricardo, throw up his hands and exclaim, "WHAT HAPPENED?" as if he had just come home from the Babalu show to find that Lucy had zanily embezzled millions of dollars from company shareholders.
"Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to- IS THAT EIGHT MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS??"
Did it Work?
Scrushy was found not guilty on the grounds that no one could prove he was aware of the skullduggery going on in his own company, demonstrating once again that race, religion, age and sexual orientation aren't relevant in deciding a person's guilt or innocence so long as they're willing to act like a complete fucking moron in open court.
That wasn't enough to fool a later judge, however, when a lot of the screwed shareholders sued Scrushy and won $2.9 billion, a sum Scrushy said he would be happy to pay because, "I have a lot of extra money, from all that fraud."
irresistible impulse = battered woman syndrome in the philippines
ReplyIf only one of the twins had said "You'll just have to charge us both it's the only way to see that justice is served" which would prove he was the innocent one.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesCould have been a bluff. And would you really go to prison cause your brother messed up?
Depends how dedicated a brother and how good a person you are. I mean, if you really want to straighten your brother out, then there's probably no better way... Well, so long as he actually has a conscience.
It says that the penalty was death by hanging. It would be pretty ballsey of the innocent brother to say "charge us both"
#1. They arrested one guy "at the scene of the crime"? And they didn't fingerprint him?
ReplyIt's Malaysia. They don't exactly have the most elite police force the world has ever seen.
The sleep walking case also was also helped by Parks' father who was also a sleep walker known to cook entire meals while asleep.
ReplyCould there possibly be... two evil twins?
ReplyMissed pun: "hung" jury
Reply"Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to- IS THAT EIGHT MILLION f*****g DOLLARS??"
ReplyEven funnier when you read it in Kevin Murphy performing Ricky Ricardo's voice.
Holy shit. Scrushy is Hannibal f*****g Lecter!!
Replyi feel so jealous of future generations and their clones. knowing they will be pulling off these types of shenanigans
Reply"They couldn't even be certain which twin was arrested at the scene of the crime."
ReplyHow? Wouldn't they have taken the guys fingerprints when he was arrested? Identical twins have different fingerprints after all.
not if there were no usable fingerprints at the scene.
Fingerprints on the guy they arrested, dum bass. The one who was at the scene of the crime is the guilty one, and it's hanging time.
Identical twins do have different fingerprints, though, don't they?
ReplyThey never said they found fingerprints on the drugs so it'd be impossible
if they have different fingerprints then they could just compare them to the ones they made when they first arrested they guy. And they do have different prints, very similar but different. Maybe they dont do fingerprints in malaysia or something
Okay, that woman had every right to cut off her rapist husband's penis... in my bizarre, twisted sense of vigilante justice.
Reply Hide All See All 10 RepliesUh, but seriously though. I back her up 100%. I'm actually really GLAD she got away with it, because I'd be mad if she went to jail for that. It's like that cheerleader that got kicked off the squad and forced to pay the school money because she wouldn't cheer for THE a*****e DOUCHEBAG WHO f*****g RAPED HER. That's some fucked up s**t right there.
Can you tell how uncontrollably angry rape makes me? This could be dangerous. Maybe I should talk to my therapist about this.
I agree.
Although in an attempt to normalize the case, I hope the man was heavily punished for rape and domestic abuse, but was somehow compensated for the lost penis. After all, that's a pretty devastating thing to lose.
But yes, kudos to her for getting out of the situation, albeit through blind rage instead of calculated thought (or even a simple phone call). Nonetheless, she doesn't have to deal with him anymore.
A better case for her lawyers to make would be temporary insanity, as that sort of thing tends to happen after you, you know, get raped by a drunk douchebag.
You do realize this is the same line of thinking he probably used to justify smacking her around, right? "Hey, she burned the pot roast, she deserves five across the eyes".
But, hey, vigilante justice is fine as long as you think it was justified, right?
@guysmiley00 Please explain to me how bad cooking and rape are comparable in any sense. Enlighten me.
Right, for some reason I feel like if a dude had said "She's been abusing me both emotionally and physically for years, I had to cut out her vagina", I would be seeing vastly different responses here. And compensated for the loss of his penis? How the hell could you compensate someone for the loss of their dick? Go ask most dudes and they'll tell you that losing our dongs is right up there with being paralyzed on the list of things that we'd least want to happen to us.
Oh, and to the above, rape and bad cooking are comparable because they're both things that are 'bad'. So in your opinion they aren't comparable? The law isn't supposed to give a s**t what people's opinions are. The point is that nobody is justified in harming someone else because of the argument "well, they did something bad to me!". That's something a 5 year old would argue, and as adults we're supposed to realize that allowing that to be admissible would just result in further and further escalation.
Anyways though, she obviously had the opportunity to leave if she had the time to go grab a knife and cut off a dude's dick, as was probably the case multiple times before. If she was being literally held captive and made to not leave, then obviously use of force or violence in order to ensure one's own safety is necessary. On the other hand, this woman was in no immediate danger, and was not being held against her will.
It was an act of vengeance, pure and simple, and last time I checked saying "I was really mad, that's why I did it." isn't supposed to cut it around here. Temporary insanity? Even that wouldn't really be appropriate, but ya know, at least it isn't just letting her go.
Now, I don't mean to minimize abuse as I realize just how damaging it can be, but where do we then draw the line where it's ok to just take matters into your own hands and exact justice in any way you see fit?
If it goes for one person it goes for another, and while many of you, (not to bring out gender here, but women judging by your usernames) see her as justified, if that's the case I then see him as justified in responding in kind. She can get therapy and if she had wounds they'd heal, and although it's often times not easy people can get past that. The man on the other hand has no hope of such a wound healing, and possession of sexual organs are pretty undeniably a large part of life. Then we have the whole fact that we know nothing about this woman and everyone here is just assuming she's some little angel who was just SO DISTRESSED that she forwent acting like an adult and kinda just went with it.
Really though, regardless of any other facts, the facts that are supposed to matter legally are: she was in no immediate danger, she had had prior opportunities to get out of the situation, and there was no reason whatsoever for what she did other than for revenge when simply leaving him at an earlier time would have avoided the entire situation. 'Revenge' is not considered a legal defense for a reason, and cases like these are a frustrating reminder of the limitations of our justice system in general; it's fairly obvious that prejudices and personal beliefs are what resulted in a possibly dangerous woman getting released penalty free and, while I apologize for being blunt, it's ridiculous that you could get 12 people who are so f*****g retarded that they have the mentality of ten year olds together in order to completely romanticize the situation, ignore reality and say "The law? Justice? Forget that shit! Life's like a hallmark card, right? Everything is based on opinion and emotion, right? Screw order!"
But hey, why not let all that go. I'll take a few swings at my boss or whatever. I may have the option to just quit and not be around him, but hey, as long as he makes me appropriately angry and upset I'm justified, right? Cause that's how we function now?
@uberpenguin
I take it you're male. Lucky you. You've never been raped, have you? Probably not. I have, and I'd rather eat a lot of bad things before having it happen again, you ignorant son of a bitch. Rape takes away every intangible thing you hold dear...your pride, dignity, trust, self-worth. You blame yourself for months, saying "I should have been better" even though not a goddamn thing would have gotten him off of you and no amount of jail sentences of cut off penises can take the pain away. The only fitting punishment is to make them feel what you felt, and there's no way to do that to a guy.
By the way, his penis was reattached. He went on to star in porn films. Lucky him.
Also, Fracesca...., that isn't a sick feeling of justice, and you don't need a therapist.
I'm glad you understand how terrible rape is.... Some girls don't...and they judge victims.
It's sad. Did you know that women are actually quite problematic in a jury convicting a rapist? A lot of them think it's the victim's fault. It's awful.
Penguin is right, this isn't some third world nation and we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. We also are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not only did she dish out her own vigilante justice, she cut off his dick, which IMO is cruel and unusual punishment.
Razer, no ones defending rape and it's terrible that it happens. We do have ways to deal with these things, though. If every person who was wronged was allowed to dole out their own punishment, then it'd be a pretty fucked up world. If someone steals from me, am I allowed to take a finger or two? What about their hand? Stealing isn't nearly as bad as rape but neither is cutting off a finger or two, compared to a dick. What happened with the guy is irrelevant, I think. Except that he was able to get it reattached. Losing your dick is going to be a pretty imasculating event, I imagine.
Once again, not justifying rape but you're justifying chopping a guys dick off. She does that, she loses all the possible sympathy she might get. As penguin pointed out, she must have been able to get out and go to the cops or something. If you're gonna say something like "she wasn't thinking clearly because she was raped" then she should be institutionalized, at least.
What they both did was quite horrible and the guys a POS for raping someone. Not to mention taking advantage of an injury that was inspired by rape. What she did, ugh, was shitty. Two wrongs don't make a right and it sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine the woman that does the same thing but doesn't run into a jury that only thinks with their hearts, one that actually considers the law. I guess it does send a good message to potential rapists
I don't think that justifying cutting off his penis is apt. But I do think that most of us who have shared in abusive situations (whether it be sexual, mental, or physical abuse), can understand the mind set of not leaving and doing something drastic. Because in many cases the person being abused feels that they have no other way out. And that ultimately, trying to get help will only confirm their fears that the abuse is really their fault.
Now granted, I've never been raped. Thank god for that. Most of my experience is in abuse taking place in childhood sot of stuff. I already know that nearly 10 years after getting out of the situation, I still feel like it was my fault. Or that maybe I made it all up, and that it wasn't as bad as I thought. It doesn't matter that there is evidence confirming the abuse, or that I've been helped by people over the years that has led to me getting better. Because abusive situations takes away so much. Even as an adult, happy and living a better life, there will always be that fear and persistent worry that someday it'll happen again.
So again, I'm not justifying her actions, but I can say that I understand that her mindset probably wasn't in the best place. And really her punishment is still going on, how many comedians from the 90's crucified her actions to get a laugh? Hell, people still make fun of it (see Family Guy and the Thing losing his penis). That's something that'll haunt her for the rest of her life. Whether in her own memory, or in some ass holes attempt to be funny with 90's pop culture references.
Don't make FrancescaMoonjellyMartinez-Greenberg angry, you won't like her when she's angry
And that's why you need to FINGERPRINT the criminal when you arrest him! Identical twins don't have identical fingerprints!
Replyi knew i had read those #20 stupid/brilliant criminal things before. Come on, cracked. You have enough writers, enough people wanting to be writers and the infinite resource of the internet for material. There is no excuse for copying and pasting old articles into new ones. That's really s****y and cheating your readers.
ReplyIt wasn't fair to give this person a thumbs-down.
I agree, it was disappointing to see the #20 criminals list, and click on this related article to find that most of them were in the list.
Cracked, if you're going to try to repackage content, maybe it would be more effective (and more enjoyable) if the original content wasn't at the bottom of the page, just waiting to be clicked on.
Damn now I wish I had an identical twin.
ReplyOh well, human cloning is around the corner...
Dude, if I had had that many electrodes on my head when I had my EEG, I would've shot the doctor and came up with baffling criminal defense #8. I had about half the number as the guy in the picture and it was a nightmare. Though, that's probably most likely because I was 15 and the doctor told me to "go about my day as normal." Cause every 15 year old sophomore goes to school with electrodes on their head. Great article other than that little reminder as to why high school sucked.
ReplyAn iteresting turnaround from #1. A south american court sent a person to the firing squad for murder despite the fact that 1. he was a Siamese Twin (and not the kind that can be seperated) and 2. all evidence in the trial showed that not only was his brother innocent he had actually tried to stop his brother from shooting the gun.
Reply"That wasn't enough to fool a later judge, however, when a lot of the screwed shareholders sued Scrushy and won $2.9 billion"
ReplyYou're confusing two different types of court proceedings with different levels of guilt. Criminal (the first court) has a bar of beyond reasonable doubt. Civil (the second court) has a bar of preponderance of the evidence which is much lower.
"Apparently there is no greater trauma than a b*****b from a transsexual (an experience Cracked writers refer to as "Wednesday")." - I almost choked on my lunch jerk! LMAO Thanks!
ReplyFunny thing. #3 is basically vigilantism, which happens to be illegal. I'm not gonna debate on that, but wouldn't it be better to judge the husband for abuse, and the woman for mutilation?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesSure, but this case is about dick slicing.
That's the thing, both were tried, her for dick-chopping, and him for all the abuse leading up to the event. Thing is that her jury (in the chop-case) saw him as guilty for the abuse, which helped her argument. On the other hand, his jury (regarding abuse) saw him as a innocent victim of a crazy dick-chopping wife, and therefore both were deemed not guilty by their respective juries. So basically the exact opposite of what you ask for happened, and with switched juries, both would have gone to jail.
Source: That late night doc*mentary I saw that time on that channel, that I think I remember the most of.
Sometimes it baffles me how entire groups of people can screw things up so spectacularly.
It also baffles (but much more often terrifies) me how the groups come together by accident, but at a much higher rate than random chance would/should allow.
So either we've built a defective system, or some deity somewhere is f*****g with us.
Fix the court situation, America. Preferably by getting the idiots out of the room (especially the jury), or at the very least, pacifying them with sweets and bright colors.