The devil made them do it

In contrast to this finding, it has been revealed that Jabbar said he was motivated by anger that his life was not going well. After he killed Schrum--a father and grandfather--firing four bullets into his victim's head and chest, bullets well-aimed to kill, he warned other moviegoers to get down. Jabbar then calmly walked into the lobby where he lay down his gun and instructed the manager to call 911. There is no evidence that he was confused about what he did. In addition, he told detectives that the gun had been purchased more than a year ago and that he methodically had planned out his crime.

Where was the inability to understand what he had done and why? Why did "doctors" say that there was no motive when Jabbar clearly had stated his motive? Why was this verdict acceptable to the jury since all of the relevant principals in the case were mystified by the "scientific" diagnosis of physicians who arbitrarily decided that Jabbar was not criminally responsible due to his unverifiable "mental illness."

County prosecutor Rachel Cogen said that she "believed" that Jabbar would be in a state psychiatric facility "for an extremely long time, if not the rest of his life," but why would she believe that? She has no ability to enforce this belief. She added that prosecutors were going to seek life in prison without parole for Jabbar, but the rhetorical psychiatrists won the day--and why would they not again win the day when Jabbar comes up for a heating seeking release in the next few years?

When this author discussed this case on the Baltimore radio station WBAL, friends and relatives of Mr. Schrum called the show to voice their incredulity at the verdict. They could not understand how any reasonable jury could not have seen the premeditation and clear motivation of Jabbar in killing Schrum. This case also provides an interesting side note respecting psychiatric rhetoric and insanity. Jabbar's sister claimed following the killing that her brother's family was unable to get Jabbar involuntarily treated at a psychiatric facility because, according to one newspaper account, "doctors said he wasn't a threat to himself or others."

Of course, the finding of an individual as not dangerous is as unscientific as the finding of a killer as insane. Psychiatrists should not be expected to know who is going to be a threat, and their views should not be given credence when they say a person could not control what he or she did or did not know what he or she was doing. They simply do not know.

Heads, guilty; tails, innocent

It merely is due to psychiatric mystification when such interpretations are accepted and there are verifiable predictions, such as whether individuals will be "dangerous" or not. In actuality, psychiatrists should be presumed to be correct as often--as psychiatric critic Bruce Ennis once wrote--as if they were guessing the result of "flipping coins in the courtroom."