I am glad that it is not my decision. I am one of those nuts that if I "lose it", I am ten times as strong as normal folks. I did not know it until I was a young man and beat a fellow's brains out during a time lapse. I have never remembered any of it, my uncle told me what he knew of it.

I don't blame you, a bit, if you don't believe me. If it had not happened to me, I doubt I would believe it.

I realized that I was going to keep close reins on my temper and so far as I know, it has not happened again, in 55 years. The thing is that it seems to be controllable.

The question is, in my mind, should I have been convicted of something? I would be a danger to society if I allowed myself to be pushed past a certain point. Yet, I didn't know it, until it happened. I can't be certain that it has not happened again, with no witnesses.

What do you think?

Your freedom stops at the threshold invading another's. Laws are set up to punish and prevent aggression no matter what the cause.

Consider someone who said I was crazy when I did the crime but am healed, what happens if he gets crazy again sometime and repeats the crime on someone else and gets healed again? Anyone who violates another's rights and freedom should be prevented from doing it again.

Thanks for your opinion dick, I tend to agree with you, anyone else?

In my case, I have no idea what I was thinking, or even if I was thinking. It was a lost part of my life and I have always thought that it could happen again.

Dick, Most of the time a defendant pleading insanity is stopped from repeating the crime by being committed to a behavioral health facility. They are not simply let go because they successfully plead insanity. They may in fact be committed for a longer period than they would have been imprisoned.

I believe the legal system exists for two reasons where it concerns criminal actions.

1. To punish/reform the criminal

....and when that cannot be done.

2. To remove the threat from the public.

Guilt, in my opinion, is the instersection of something having been done, and someone having done it. A reduced mental capacity does not remove guilt, just the same as it does not undue the harm done. In the case of those who are considered legally insane, we may not be able to accomplish #1 above, but we can certainly accomplish #2.

I find it erroneous to say a criminal is "not guilty" when all of the evidence says they are. Now, if we want to offer different incarceration terms to address those with mental illnesses, that makes sense. But, if they did it, they're guilty.

In the middle: It is said 'not guilty' to avoid saying innocent. Since the burden of proof lies on the prosecution (except on an insanity plea, in which reverses to the defendant) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt, the term not guilty falls into place. It is not claiming that the defendant was innocent, only that the prosecution could not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If you're innocent then you cannot be tried. Going back to the insanity plea, it does not remove responsibility from the actions of the defendant, it only mitigates the intent portion of what constitutes the elements of a crime. A person found insane would not be released, he or she will be committed to an mental institution for evaluation and care (remember the case on someone flew over the cuckoo's nest?). Sometimes prison is a better alternative to a mental institution...

Iwonder: Even though I understand your point and all the claims you make regarding not having a relapse on your violent outburst, let me ask you from the perspective of the victim: Do you have the right to be out on the streets without punishment after you beat me to a pulp (whether knowingly or not)?

Are any of us completely sane? Obviously, I do not claim to be, do you?

Nah justice, I don't know what is right. Even worse, I cannot swear, that I have had no more episodes, only that I have had none to my knowledge.

Just to cloud the issue a little more, I raised two children and have six grandchildren. None of them are alcoholics, dope heads or jail birds. I had custody of them after their mother left, then she died. I wont say they are perfect but they please me.

It may be telling that my daughter is a psychologist.

Iwonder: Nobody disputes that you may be a wonderful parent and grandparent. The problem lies in that insanity is not a medical term, it's a legal one. And it is used to measure whether you understood the consequence of your actions at the time of the crime. I've seen cases of temporary insanity because of stress, but like I said before, it's not for the prosecutor to prove, it's for the defendant to prove that he or she did not realize the good or evil of their actions at the time of the crime.

Well justice, I suspect that the time has past, since it was around 1956 or 57 and maybe I should have been locked up but I wasn't because no one knew what happened to the fellow, there was only one competent partial witness and he is incapacitated. The only thing I can say is hear say. I'm not making excuses, I'm just saying that things may not always be black and white, I am not the judge.

I think anyone who posts three contiguous messages in thread should be put to death.

IWonder: It is absolutely true. Things are not black and white all the time, that is why there are procedures in place to address those instances when the situation is 'gray.' You have the luck to become a decent person (since you are claiming that you took care of two children and six grandchildren). Should we pay for a bout of irrationality for all our lives? I don't know, you haven't killed anyone. Were your actions reprehensible? Maybe, beating someone senseless is far from being light. But neither we were in your shoes nor we can judge your mens rea (your intent). We don't know what could have happened so we cannot infer what the outcome may be. We only know, for what you claim, that you led a respectable life (at least to the eyes of your children and grandchildren) and that is what it should count. I think this case presents another type of problem since the actions of the defendant claimed the lives of two people.

IWonder if some posters here are just proof of insanity and thereby validating the argument that the defendant wasn't capable of making judgements, therefore the mitigating circumstances?

;-)

If you break the law, you are by definition insane. Guilty by reason of insanity, I say.

Softdude: The law presumes that everybody is sane. It is the defense burden to prove it otherwise.

I reread post 1.11 justice, I could not prove what the state of my mind was because I have no recollection of the event, at all. I remember seeing the fellow strike my uncle in the head with a half a brick, the next thing that I remember was being choked. That was my uncle's arm across my throat.

Well, that is not insanity, that was self defense (the defense of another person at risk)...

Whatever it was, I have tried to take care that it never happened again.

Yes, but you omitted that little detail, you were defending your uncle who was hit with a brick. That falls under self-defense... that you lost it in the spur of the moment may be true, but there was a reason behind, you were defending a person being attacked with a weapon (that half a brick constituted a weapon), therefore you acted upon it. There is nothing with insanity, insanity would be if out of the blue you started to punch that other person. And I think that if someone dared to touch your children or grandchildren you would do the same, defend them.

Oh you are definitely right there, but hopefully with moderation. And the good news is, at 73, I'm surely not very dangerous. Then again, I ride my bicycle around 8 miles a day.

Hey Justice, thank you.

If my uncle pulls out of his stroke, I'll tell him what you said. We were about the same age and best friends. I know it has been eating on him. I was living in another state at the time, and he called long distance, to tell me they had put the fellow in a permanent care facility, we have never spoken of it since. Really, we haven't talked much since.

I realized that I was going to keep close reins on my temper and so far as I know, it has not happened again, in 55 years. The thing is that it seems to be controllable.

iwonder - whatever rage-induced outburst of violence you experienced 50+ years ago, might constitute a momentary lapse of your legal sanity. But is is not the same as being in the grip of a true psychosis, such as acute paranoid schizophrenia. Sufferers of such illnesses see and hear things which are not there. Their sense of reality is broken and, unlike one's temper, the symptoms are not controllable through any act of will.

So, kudos to you for controlling your temper in the intervening years, but your experience is probably quite different than that of the man in this story.

For the record, I believe the State of Idaho is legally correct is claiming there is no Constitutional guarantee that the law must provide for an insanity defense. But I also believe that they are morally wrong; there are people whose minds are completely broken, and have no more ability to assess the wrongness of their actions than a fish does to breath air.

But that is how the voters and legislature of Idaho have written their laws, and that is how they'll stand.

Yes, actually, you can. At least to the same extent that you can "fix" diabetes or other chronic diseases.

joemike, they don't fix insanity or even mental illness they only control the symptoms through drugs & then meds only work when the person take them.

Laws were made to maintain order in a society based on presumed roles of conduct. Lawyers are always trying to find a way to get their cleint off instead of protecting society from them. The plead should be guily but insane.In Amerika we are more interested in protecting the rights of the criminals than the rights of the victims. No longer a sense of personal responsibilty.

Yes, they fix insanity much like they 'fix' diabetes. Through control and therapy of some kind. The insanity plea is crap. It's just people incapable of taking responsibility for themselves.

Spoken like a couple of guys who have never had a crazy (literally) family member. I have news for you guys...one in four people is mentally ill. If you don't know anyone crazy, guess who that might be?

The problem (as usual) lies with unscrupulous abusers and ignorance of the situation. @JohnQ you need to disassociate your problems with the "Amerikan" legal systems with mentally ill people. They are being used as a scapegoat. The idea behind the Positive Defense of insanity is that you admit what you have done and have to prove that you were in some way inculpable. Too often, broadstroked hacks make movies or TV shows about the abusers and people like you, who may be well meaning (and who I even agree with, basically) fall for it.

@CaerRaven I'm going to start by saying this; you may be saying that sarcastically. I can't tell. If you are, I'm deeply sorry. To anyone who really feels that way, you are just misinformed. "Generation treatment" can be expected to feel this way, so maybe you're just too young to remember exactly how many VietNam vets came home TOTALLY broken because we didn't understand (and still don't) that we can only mitigate mental illness; that problems can be fairly easy to cause and impossible to really "fix". You may view insanity as an inconvenience, and if so, you have no concept what genuine insanity is...how scary, dehabilitating, and stigmatizing it is. Imagine not being able to believe anything...what you see, what you hear, even what you remember. We have only had some mental health parity in this country for 20 years. Seriously. The insurance companies fought tooth and nail to keep Schizophrenia and many other actually treatable mental illnesses off their shoulders. To think that it's "Fixable" is a symptom of the modern big pharm view that anything is controllable, with the right pill.

if you find 100.000$ in a bank bag,and you keep it,is that temporary insanity?

A hundred bucks ain't all that much these days.

Exactly! Guilty, but insane.

Only in the punishment for the crime..........

Indeed

However, it seems that the laws that preclude the insanity defense ALSO preclude using insanity as a reason for less punishment.

However, it seems that the laws that preclude the insanity defense ALSO preclude using insanity as a reason for less punishment.

Hence the two life sentances without parole in this Idaho case.

They were insanely drunk at the time.....

Its temporary and most of the time when totally wasted you dont know right from wrong.

The problem is that many laws include differentiation related to premeditation. For example difference between degrees of murder, murder versus manslaughter, etc. So even if they don't allow insanity as a defense itself, you still can't really say they're guilty if they don't have the capacity to premeditate something. There's no perfect balance -- putting truly mentally ill people in prison or death seems somehow wrong, but having everyone claim to be insane makes it really difficult to draw a consistent line.

It certainly gets stupid when they talk about "temporary insanity" like in the Bobbit case -- i.e. just cause you got really mad you get found not guilty of doing something you admit you did?

The Colorado theater shooter.... Totally premeditated. He's setting up for an insanity defense.

If they did the deed, especially murder, then they are a threat. Isn't the issue of "guilt" a semantic argument about the moral intent of the perpetrator? Should the law be about the moral intent of the perpetrator? Can the law know the moral intent of the perpetrator? Shouldn't the goal of the legal system be the evaluation of the degree of threat that an individual is to other innocent citizens and then provide protection of society from that person? Do you really believe that the law should be about revenge?

expat: All these elements have to comply in order for a crime to be considered as such:

1. legally proscribed (the concept of
   Legality)
2. human conduct (the concept of Actus
   Reus)
3. causative (the concept of
   Causation)
4. of a given harm (the concept of Social
   Harm)
5. which coincides with (the concept of
   Concurrence)
6. a blameworthy frame of mind (the concept
   of Mens Rea)
7. for which punishment is provided. (the
   concept of Punishment)

What is questioned usually in insanity cases is point 6 (mens rea) since you can't really determine what is going on on someone's mind when committing those acts. Did they know the consequences of their actions? If they do, then there is no insanity to claim.

Law is in a form revengeful. Remember that criminal law serves four purposes:

1- Deterrence

2- Retribution

3- Incapacitation

4- Rehabilitation

Depending on the crime and the severity, society in general, through the law, intends to right a wrong. Nowadays we have a system that it is more inclined in # 2 & 3.

Interesting, Justice for All,

but I respectfully disagree that law can rehabilitate, so I would throw that one off the list. Law usually does the opposite of rehabilitation. It makes a person unemployable for ANY other career pursuit other than crime.

I do not believe in retribution or revenge. Certainly law can do those things, but I question the moral position that would attempt to conduct revenge or retribution.

The threat of criminal penalties have been shown to only have a small degree of deterrence to criminal activity. Criminals believe that they will not be caught.

So that leaves incapacitation. Locking a criminal up removes the opportunity for the criminal to do his criminal deeds. This is really the only purpose in my opinion for the legal system -- to protect society from the malicious people who live among us.

The other purposes you noted are not real, they are idealistic pie in the sky!

Expat: I beg to disagree that people cannot be rehabilitated. I had the opportunity to work with a person who was incarcerated for assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon and other sorts of charges. Even though one of my managers asked me to fire him (for lying according to him, when it was not the case), I gave him a chance. I am happy to say that I never had to go to that manager to tell him that he was right. This gentleman was one of my best employees, never looked for trouble, always on time and many times we had to go and look for him to tell him that it was time to go because he would still work. It is not necessarily applicable to all the cases, but I would not throw it out the window. The law does not make that person unemployable, it's society who still after they served their sentence still ostracize them (again not in all cases).

I agree that seldom the penalties imposed create a deterrence, look at capital punishment and you will see that despite of being in place to deter people from capital offenses, those crimes are still being committed.

I don't see retribution as a revenge, but as a level tool. Society needs to repair a wrong done to the victim, and it assumes the position of the victim in order to establish a penalty for that offense. If we would apply your position alone on incapacitation, believe me, we would make a fortune our of building prisons.

I commend him for assaulting a police officer.

Most states permit a defendant to claim the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. It's not a medical term, it's a legal one, generally meaning that a person could not understand the difference between right and wrong and was, therefore, unable to act with criminal intent.

Therein lies the issue....If a person is mentally challenged then this won't apply to them. It is exactly why there are psychiatrists evaluations to determine if the defendant is able to distinguish between right and wrong.

If someone tries to hide, or get away with a crime, they are legally sane.

Joe Veteran: You beat me to it... I was about to say the same.

Spike: The law presumes that everybody is sane. It is the defendant's burden to prove it otherwise.

Hey even if a Down-sydrome person commits cold blooded murder, yep he needs to at least be lock away for life if the death penalty is out. We're not talking social crimes, peeing in the streets, stealing, or lying. Insanity or mental illness should never be an aceptable excuse for murder, rape, bodily harm to a child. And to say if such monsters are deemed insane are place in hospital are kept from harming others is a joke on society.

DKJ-4: I doubt that a person with down-syndrome would committ a cold bloded murder. Cold blooded murders precludes planning and execution in the part of a person with diminished intellectual capabilities (such as a down syndrome person). There is a big difference between mental illness and insanity. Insanity refers to the mental state of mind of one person at a specific period of time (the time of the crime being committed). A mental illness is something more complex for the person cannot distinguish reality from fiction. In their mind may be reality when it is not. And it is the procedure that when a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity to place them in a mental institution.

Except the didn't, three of the 9 dissented.

You didn't read to the end. 3 justices dissented.

Read the article before commenting DrMan.

Endora: what you need to put in the scale is whether the person deliberately stopped taking the medication to harm another under the disguise of insanity. The main problem is that insanity is not a medical condition, it is a legal alternative. The prosecution presumes that the defendant is competent to stand trial. It is the defendant's burden to prove it otherwise. In the case you mentioned it may be premeditated, because the defendant knew beforehand that not taking his or her meds would lead to the situation in which he or she may be involved.

Dear Goldfish. The answer is one if it's a dragon from anywhere but Texas. Then, an entire flock of them couldn't figure it out:)

Then, an entire flock of them couldn't figure it out:)

Concur. :)

Are you kidding? What makes you think a dragon would last long enough in Texas to get his claws on the lightbulb? He'd have two or three high power rounds pumped through him in no time, and then be on the way to the meat processor. Taxidermists would line up for the chance to be first in prominently displaying a dragon head over someone's mantle. (Come to think of it, this could be why there are no more dinosaurs)

What makes you think a dragon would last long enough in Texas to get his claws on the lightbulb?

The dragon is the light bulb. ;)

But the other dragons have to want to change otherwise they will remain in the dark.

And that is what happens when found insane. They do not walk free... they are transferred to a mental institution.

And then they are "cured" at the mental institution? We have closed most of the mental institutions in America. The criminally insane are mostly kept in prisons.

Another thing that makes humans so special is the ability to exhibit compassion, well at least some of us...

The usual response to the above statement is, "the killer didn't show and compassion for his victim, so why should we show compassion toward him?" The answer is because we don't want to descend to his level, but to rise above.

I thought it was the apposable thumb...

For the most part, humans are pretty stupid. We keep the infirm alive... we put animals in cages (even human animals)... we destroy the enviornment with ease... and we wage war for usless resasons (religion, race, greed).

Really, how "special" are we?

That is the key question is it not? Are they a danger to anyone? If they have murdered then they have demonstrated that they are. Doesn't the public deserve the same protection from an insane murderer as they deserve from a sane murderer?

MSpielman,

I question your question: "Is a person who lacks free will still responsible for his actions? If he truly does not have the capacity to choose, and cannot be given that capacity, should he be held accountable?"

As I see it, people with diminished mental capacity affecting their ability to determine right from wrong, still have free will. Your last paragraph, asking what the appropriate action is toward people who cannot determine right from wrong and have acted criminally, is more to the point.

In deriving an answer, a risk versus consequences approach can (should?) be taken. Lack or presence of criminal or malicious intent should not be a factor.

In the example you give of the 32 year old man with the mental capacity of a 2 year old, the risk of significantly destructive and injurious behavior appears to be minimal as it occurs infrequently. However, when it does occur the consequences can be devastating.

In my opinion, consequences should be seen as more significant than risk. Therefore whatever measures are taken, they should be aimed at preventing potential destructive and injurious behavior even if that means a life time of incarceration.

hmd, you make a valid point, but should we be incarcerated for life for what we might potentially do? What would be your standard? If I am the 32 year old under discussion and display one violent episode, should I be imprisoned/committed for the rest of my life just so everyone feels free from the threat of future violence? And will that lifetime of incarceration stop the threat of future violence of just hide if from polite society?

A long time ago, there was simply a quiet and fairly accepted practice of infanticide. Babies and children who showed signs of abnormality were simply killed. This was very, very common all over the world.

A few hundred years ago, sanitariums were popular. That's where these people were put, and more or less treated as animals to be studied. They had no way of distinguishing between insanity, retardation, mental illness, psychosis, or even dementia. The solution was to lock them all up. It was considered a mercy, and the most humane possible option. They were combinations of prisons and research labs.

Sanitariums were hideous places back then, but that was largely due to the primitiveness of 18th and 19th century science and medicine.

More recently, we had a version of those in the United States, state-funded mental hospitals that were a more or less safe place to send these people to keep them isolated from regular society. I'm not sure how nice they were, but they were free for anybody, and considered part of the public good. Reagan shut them down, citing how expensive they were. In some cases the patients, with no relatives to care for them, were simply let out on the streets. That's where the image of the "deranged homeless person" came from. To this day there is no public funding for adult, mentally incapable people. It is assumed either they will end up in jail or cared for by their relatives.

"Is a person who lacks free will still responsible for his actions?" SERIOUSLY??? That person shoule NEVER be allowed to see the light of day... EVER! Your friend was an idoit... her son should have never been allowed to be in her home. How dare she call the police to help her with a situation she invented! Face facts, if you cannot provide for yourself, then what do you do FOR our society? Millions of dollars are spend each year to keep criminals alive in prisons that will never see the outside of those walls... again, why keep them alive? Same for someone that is insane... happens once, can happen again. Take them out of the equation... and would help society in the process...

joemike404,

The questions of whether to incarcerate, for how long, and under what circumstances all need to be addressed. I suspect there are no single, correct answers for any of them other than each individual's case should be handled and judged primarily on its merits rather than by some fixed standard.

As to incarceration stopping violence, unless the patient is strapped down 24/7, probably not. However, personnel who are trained to work among the violently insane are far better equipped to detect, prevent, and survive a violent outburst that we citizens on the street.

There is also a flip side to incarceration. It keeps the violently insane from harm. I mention this because the violently insane in this country have met violent ends at the hands of police and private citizens. Some have even been preyed upon for what appears to be sport.

In the end, if we as a society truly think that the violently insane should be well cared for under conditions where they will not do themselves or others any harm, we will create institutions (I use that term with some trepidation) wherein they can be cared for with kindness and competence, and from which they can not harm society. If we don't do this, then all that's posted here and written, spoken elsewhere, is just so much societal lip service.

Sadden American-

What is your idea then? The education system is required by law to provide appropriate education to all children, no matter their disability. My wife teaches autistic kids. They can be violent, and they can be brilliant, and they can be frustrating, or amazing -- do they deserve life imprisonment or execution? Should they be eliminated as children before they're a drain on society? While they're getting educational services they see highly trained therapists. They're given appropriate education. They're treated like actual people with real needs.

After they turn 18 there's a sort of adult integration program which can run, I think, until they're 22. Some of them will clearly never be able to function in society. Others... maybe, with accommodations and supervision. Some end up that quirky guy on the bus who doesn't know when to shut up about his camera.

Then there's nothing. No help, no direction. There's noplace to lock them up, except prison, where they'll be treated like criminals, with no comprehension why everybody is suddenly so mean and why they can't see their mommy. Or their family can try to care for them at home.

That's it, two options. One cruel to the child, the other cruel to their caregivers.

And it's not just developmentally delayed children -- this can happen to adults. An injury can cause brain damage, reducing a man to the mental ability of a child. You can suffer early-onset dementia (I know a woman whose husband is slowly dying from this. Every day he remembers her and the children less, he acts more and more unlike himself, and he has sudden, dramatic mood swings. He knows something is wrong and that he can't stop it. He wants to move out to a special home so he doesn't have to see people that love him but he doesn't recognize, but they can't afford it. There is no cure, he is going to be dead from brain degeneration in a few years. It's heartbreaking.)

Sometimes family and friends pitch in to try to make the lives of these people bearable. They try to provide help and services. But this is expensive, especially if the person literally can't take care of themselves.

With proper, one-on-one care, a full-time expert on hand for emergencies, they can live a tolerable life. Sometimes a severely autistic child can, with upwards of 60 hours of individualized, intensive therapy a week with a trained professional, can actually reverse the trend and become almost normal. But who can afford this? That costs upwards of a thousand dollars a week. The school system does what it can, but therapists can usually only see a child for 1 or 2 hours a week one-on-one.

Is prison really the best option? With the drug smugglers and gang bangers, with the murderers and rapists? Is that really the best place for a mentally disabled adult with no comprehension of the concept of malice? Would you put a 50 year old with dementia in jail, because their midnight wanderings pose a danger to themselves, or they might wander into the street and cause an accident? What if he lives on his own and has nobody to keep an eye on him?

These are hard questions, and deserving of more than a "life sucks, we should treat them like criminals or just kill them" response. Real life isn't like the internet, where you can solve societal problems with a flippant remark and callous indifference.

What would you do if it was your child, who you had loved and raised, who was becoming a danger to himself and others during his fits, but acted like a regular 3 year old who wants to watch kids shows and eat cereal, wrap up with a blanket by the fire while you read stories, and run and play at the park? Would you just let the police haul him off and figure your life was better with him gone? Really?

Yes, potable, it's so very overused; the statistics are that the insanity defense is raised in a little less than 1% of felony cases, and is successful in a fraction of those cases.

Yeah, a real tidal wave.

Potable: Insanity pleas can only be made by the defense. The prosecution presumes that every person is sane. That is why the burden of proof falls under the defendant, not the prosecution.

Expat: I explained to you before that the criminal law serves four purposes: 1- retribution (to right a wrong), 2- Deterrence (to prevent others from committing that wrong), 3- Rehabilitation (to re-insert that person into society once its debts is paid and 4- Incapacitation (to prevent that person to harm anyone else). When you say insane, what are you referring to? What about a schizophrenic who believes that martians are out there to take him/her? (I use the schizophrenic as an example). Should we punish that person who does not understand what is real or not in our terms? Should we kill him or her in order to protect society? And when we get rid of all the schizos, who will be next? It's kind of a complicated avenue the one that you are proposing.

I am a utilitarian, you are an idealist. Neither of us is going to change.

I am an utilitarian too, expat. But I differ in my approach. I understand that there is people that unfortunately lack the capacity to distinguish reality from fiction and right from wrong. You and I are lucky enough to understand the concepts and apply it correctly. But the difference lies in that we cannot apply the same rule to a person who is capable of cognition on his or her acts to a person that is not. Let me give you an example... have you seen the movie "A beautiful mind"? The guy was an schizo that thought that he was working for the government. if he would have not been treated, we would have locked him up. And the guy ended up winning the Nobel Prize for economics... so that gives you the idea that even though we need to serve an utilitarian purpose, we have to be careful how we act, otherwise we could make huge mistakes, damaging people in the proces...

Insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. It doesn't mean I don't know how to kill you; get the gun, load the gun, find you, shoot you. I means that I don't know its wrong to do so.

hah...............................................hah