Holly+Roberts+2B

=__**State vs. McLaughlin **__= On September 24, 2003, a fifteen-year-old freshman named John Jason McLaughlin came to his high school, in Minnesota, with his fathers gone with the intent to hurt a fellow classmate. As McLaughlin shot at Seth Bartell, he missed the second shot, hitting a bystander, Aaron Rollins. Rollins was followed and shot again by John, and later died in the hospital. With both Seth Bartell and Aaron Rollins fatally injured from the gun wounds, McLaughlin was sent to court and charged with first and second degree murder, as well as possession a weapon on school campus. John appealed to three courts, two in which his lawyer attempted to lessen the sentence of a life in prison by using the M'Naughten rule, to prove that he was insane at the time that he shot the two teenagers. In 2007, John's case appealed the Supreme Court of Minnesota, where the same ruling was applied, partly due to the fact that McLaughlin only used the insanity defense at his second hearing that was appealed.
 * Summary**:

McLauglin claimed to have been bullied for years by Seth Bartell, so he planned several days in advance to get a gun to school. When being questioned by police, he said he did not have the intention to kill but only hurt those he was being harassed by. After being sentenced to life in prison for murder, John McLaughlin appealed to higher courts twice more in attempt to prove that he was mentally ill and did not know right from wrong at the time of his actions. His reasoning for appealing was that the M'Naughten is not the most accurate way of testing for insanity in children, for younger people do not have the same morals as adults in the first place. When he requested to have another expert witness, he was denied for it would not have changed the outcome of the case enough to be significant. Lastly, he appealed to higher courts for the fact of having overlapping sentences, which the defendant thought was not the most lawful judgement by the court.
 * Defendant's Case**:



In State vs. McLaughlin, the prosector's said proved that if the intent of John was only to hurt, he would not have brought a gun. Also, because of McLaughlin admitting to the killings soon after they happened, then there is signs of the killer being aware of his actions at the time of the event. Many doctors and those who observed the defendant said that there may be mental problems, but not enough for McLaughlin to not be aware of what's right or wrong.
 * Prosecutor's Case**:

After all of John McLaughlin's hearigngs, it was finally decided that he would be charged for two murders and sentenced to a life in prison. Any mental issues were not significant enough to control his actions, and therefore did not hold up in court.

Adolescent defendants should be treated justly based on their age, but almost everything that applies to adults is the same for children. The ruling for this case was just in its process of finding the defendant guilty, for it was appealed twice, and fairly went through many tests to determine if McLaughlin was actually mentally ill. Age does have a role in deciding how responsible someone is for their actions, but not an excuse for a fifteen-year-old to shoot two other adolescents. Sometimes a adolescent defendant can't be as reliable as an adult, with The Crucible as an example, where children are more like to lie to save themselves. If John had been an adult, there would have been the same outcome, in fact, McLaughlin could not have said the M'Naughten rule was unfairly used based on age.


 * Sources**:

Garcia, N. (2005). Judge: mclaughlin was sane when he shot classmates. //WCCO//, Retrieved from http://wcco.com/topstories/John.Jason.McLaughlin.2.348688.html

Kapoor, R. (2008). Adolescents and the insanity defense. //Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online//, Retrieved from http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/145