From the fine folks over there at the NY Times, we learn of a one David Tarloff and his trials and tribulations. Mr. Tarloff is schizophrenic. That was evidenced no more clearly than back in 2008 when he killed his psychologist, a one Dr. Kathryn Faughey, by hacking her to death in her office. In what would seem to shock no one, Mr. Tarloff was deemed unfit to stand trial.The article states that "This was the second time Mr. Tarloff, who has a history of psychosis, was declared unfit for trial since his arrest." Really? History of psychosis? You don't say. Was that figured out before or after all of the hacking that went on? I'm guessing that afterwards it was probably really clear if it hadn't been beforehand. In fact, after all of the slashing "His lawyers had told the court that...he was driven to it by voices that he thought were God telling him to do it." I see. So, what is it that is the problem here?
Well, last year "...doctors determined that Mr. Tarloff was in a good enough mental state to stand trial, and so the case proceeded and opening statements were expected Monday." Is that our standard now? A "good enough" mental state? Not great. Good enough. Look, I'm all for putting people on trial who are completely competent, but when you're dealing with schizophrenia, you might just want to hold off a little bit. Good enough might not actually be good enough, you know?
By the way, the reason that they declared him unfit for his trial this time? He "...refused to leave his holding cell to go to court for jury selection on Friday afternoon." That's it? He doesn't want to go into court and so that makes him unfit? Why is that? The article explains that "Someone is declared unfit when he or she is mentally unable to assist in his or her own defense." Sooo...not going into court is unable to assist in their own defense? Since when? If you're so hell bent on putting this obviously crazy individual on trial, what say you just haul his ass in there anyway and see how it goes, alright? How bad could it be? He's nuts, after all. His contribution will likely be minimal. (It will also likely be entertaining as hell, but I'm told that's not what the justice system is for.)
Look, it's pretty obvious that this guy is fruit loops. He needs a mental institution...for a long, long time. No need to rush things. It's not like he's going anywhere. But I certainly don't see any point in trying to hurry along a trial for a guy who really needs some serious head shrinking. It's just a waste of everyone's time. He did it. We know he did it. Is the trial really all that necessary when that conclusion is completely obvious? I'm not so sure that it is.
