SEC=UGA Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (CBS/WTSP/AP) CLEARWATER, Fla. - Stephen Coffen, aka "the Red Bull killer," who admitted he killed his own father, will see no jail time after a judge found him not guilty by reason of insanity. Judge Nancy Moate Ley ruled Wednesday that the 42-year-old Coffeen will be sent to a state mental hospital rather than stand trial on a murder charge for the December 2009 slaying of his 83-year-old father Robert. The case made national headlines after a doctor suggested the consumption of the energy drink Red Bull along with sleep deprivation contributed to Coffeen's temporary insanity. Four doctors -- two hired by prosecutors, two by the defense -- all agreed: Stephen Coffeen lost touch with reality and was legally insane when he suffocated his elderly father with a couch cushion two years ago, reports CBS affiliate WTSP. Stephen's brother Thomas found their father's body. He says Stephen knew just what he was doing. Thomas pushed for a murder trial. "This is not justice. Justice has not been done today," Thomas said, standing outside the Pinellas County Courthouse with a despondent look on his face as his wife sobbed nearby, reports the station. Thomas says his brother was jealous of his success, and that led him to plan the murder of their father. He says he's also worried that if Stephen is released, he will come after him and his family. But Judge Ley said the insanity case is remarkably clear-cut, reports the station. "I have spent many many hours on this case. Reviewing it, thinking about it, considering it, looking at case law. And I have determined that I have no choice, because it is also my duty to follow the law," Ley said. Stephen Coffeen will now head to Florida State Hospital, a mental hospital in Chattahoochee, northwest of Tallahassee and near the Georgia state line. His attorneys say the killing was a momentary snap and that their client is already mentally well, which is a sign they may ask the judge to release him at his next hearing in December. Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-200...l#ixzz1OsLlxmoD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 So I can stay up all night and justifiably kill someone? How does that correlate with all the meth induced crimes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 So I can stay up all night and justifiably kill someone? How does that correlate with all the meth induced crimes? Red Bull is legal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 seems to me taht if a product could make someone kill another that it needs to be pulled from all shelves. What, you don't like alcohol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Could this produce a civil suit against Red Bull I wonder? I've heard that it is almost impossible to get off with the insanity defense these days, so while this sounds really fishy on the surface, I have to believe that they presented some really solid evidence to convince everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 So it's the twinkie defense with red bull? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I suffer from pretty bad insomnia. It is not uncommon for me to average 3 to 4 hours a sleep a night, months at a time. There is an ebb and flow to it to where roughly every 6 to 8 weeks I can go without sleep for a day or two. Along with my insomnia I also have very bad RLS and when both peek at the same time it is purely hell on earth for me. The last real bad one I had I went 53 hours without sleep. The longest I've gone without sleep that I can think of right now was 3 days and I can tell you that you will begin hallucinating (audio and visual). Sleep deprivation can really detach you from reality. The most vivid one I had before is that i was doing something on the computer and my beagle sparky was sitting next to my feet. He stunk to high hell and I bent down to pet him. Sparky was my first dog that died when I was 4 years old. It was almost like my brain was so out of wack that this random memory of my dog popped up and it felt real. He very well may have been temporarily insane. After all these type of drinks (red bull, ect) are nothing more than unregulated pharmacological supplements people are ingesting. I tell everyone to stay away from these things. Who knows what lack of sleep and drinking too many of these drinks can do to a person who may already be unstable. So I can believe this story. But Scoob does bring up a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I've heard that it is almost impossible to get off with the insanity defense these days, so while this sounds really fishy on the surface, I have to believe that they presented some really solid evidence to convince everyone. Savage and I agree. First, it is very difficult to find four forensic psychologists who all reach the same conclusion unless the case is clear cut, one way or the other. Second, if there was actually a trial regarding whether or not the defendant was insane, it would have been a jury trial, not a trial by a Judge. This indicates to me that the state attorney stipulated to the findings of the experts and did not put up a fight. This never happens unless the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Once the state attorney stipulated, the Judge really had no choice but to adjudicate the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and send him on up to Florida State Hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Red Bull is for children. Real men take NUVIGIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 His attorneys say the killing was a momentary snap and that their client is already mentally well, which is a sign they may ask the judge to release him at his next hearing in December. Good to see that he is better now. I can't foresee any danger to the public at large, himself, or most specifically to his brother, who knows him far better than any psychiatrist will ever know him and who fears for his own safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 His attorneys say the killing was a momentary snap and that their client is already mentally well, which is a sign they may ask the judge to release him at his next hearing in December. Good to see that he is better now. I can't foresee any danger to the public at large, himself, or most specifically to his brother, who knows him far better than any psychiatrist will ever know him and who fears for his own safety. I didn't realize you had had the opportunity to review court records/documents. I also didn't realize that you were in contact with the staff at Florida State Hospital and they had communicated their plans regarding discharge to you. Surely, you're not forming your opinion by one newspaper article whose primary job it is is to sell newspapers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I didn't realize you had had the opportunity to review court records/documents. I also didn't realize that you were in contact with the staff at Florida State Hospital and they had communicated their plans regarding discharge to you. Surely, you're not forming your opinion by one newspaper article whose primary job it is is to sell newspapers? Once he is no longer "insane" does the hospital just let the killer go home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Once he is no longer "insane" does the hospital just let the killer go home? No. Given that the nature of his charge and the fact that he was sent to FSH, he will likely be there much longer than December. I've never visited FSH but know that they have a structured program. Initially, the "killer" will be in the most secure unit which is very much like a prison. If he does well, he will move to less and less secure placements within the hospital and gain more and more privileges. Eventually, if the "killer" demonstrates stability for a prolonged period of time, he will be placed on conditional release and sent to live in his community. He will have a great deal of requirements placed on him including meeting regularly with case management and psychiatric outpatient staff. He will likely be placed into a supervised group home setting. Eventually, he may be allowed to live independently in the community. ETA: Even if psychiatric staff believe that a defendant is ready for discharge, ultimately, it is up to the judge. Edited June 10, 2011 by untateve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 No. Given that the nature of his charge and the fact that he was sent to FSH, he will likely be there much longer than December. I've never visited FSH but know that they have a structured program. Initially, the "killer" will be in the most secure unit which is very much like a prison. If he does well, he will move to less and less secure placements within the hospital and gain more and more privileges. Eventually, if the "killer" demonstrates stability for a prolonged period of time, he will be placed on conditional release and sent to live in his community. He will have a great deal of requirements placed on him including meeting regularly with case management and psychiatric outpatient staff. He will likely be placed into a supervised group home setting. Eventually, he may be allowed to live independently in the community. ETA: Even if psychiatric staff believe that a defendant is ready for discharge, ultimately, it is up to the judge. I'm not sure how I feel about that. There is no dispute that he killed someone, and it wasn't an accident. Though, punishment is not the issue on my mind. I do not question the legitimacy of his temporary insanity, merely the safeguards protecting society from a killer with a history of temporary insanity. Out of curiosity, are you aware of any data pertaining to the rates of recidivism for individuals who are ultimately released from these types of facilities? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'm not sure how I feel about that. There is no dispute that he killed someone, and it wasn't an accident. Though, punishment is not the issue on my mind. I do not question the legitimacy of his temporary insanity, merely the safeguards protecting society from a killer with a history of temporary insanity. Out of curiosity, are you aware of any data pertaining to the rates of recidivism for individuals who are ultimately released from these types of facilities? Thank you. So, in other words, the entire notion of curing people of mental illness is bunk? I mean, if the only difference between finding someone guilty of murder and not-guilty due to insanity means they spend the rest of their lives in a mental hospital rather than in prison or getting executed, what's the point? I would think that the entire premise of an insanity based ruling is that the person is fixable and therefor possibly able to rejoin society. Who knows, maybe this dude will someday save a single mother and her young son from her abusive boyfriend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 So, in other words, the entire notion of curing people of mental illness is bunk? I mean, if the only difference between finding someone guilty of murder and not-guilty due to insanity means they spend the rest of their lives in a mental hospital rather than in prison or getting executed, what's the point? I would think that the entire premise of an insanity based ruling is that the person is fixable and therefor possibly able to rejoin society. Who knows, maybe this dude will someday save a single mother and her young son from her abusive boyfriend? I don't think anyone (other than perhaps you) has suggested such a conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'm not sure how I feel about that. There is no dispute that he killed someone, and it wasn't an accident. Though, punishment is not the issue on my mind. I do not question the legitimacy of his temporary insanity, merely the safeguards protecting society from a killer with a history of temporary insanity. Out of curiosity, are you aware of any data pertaining to the rates of recidivism for individuals who are ultimately released from these types of facilities? Thank you. I don't know the recidivism rates--I'm not sure if there are any. I will also say that "temporary insanity" generally doesn't exist. Typically, to be found legally insane one must have a mental illness and because of that mental illness either not have control of their actions or if one has control of his actions, he cannot appreciate the consequences of his actions nor adequately distinguish right from wrong. I'm not familiar with this case but I've been involved with enough cases that I know that the media's portrayal is almost always inaccurate. Anytime I'm ever contacted by the media, I consistently refuse to offer any comment whatsoever because I've seen how twisted comments are by the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I don't know the recidivism rates--I'm not sure if there are any. I will also say that "temporary insanity" generally doesn't exist. Typically, to be found legally insane one must have a mental illness and because of that mental illness either not have control of their actions or if one has control of his actions, he cannot appreciate the consequences of his actions nor adequately distinguish right from wrong. I'm not familiar with this case but I've been involved with enough cases that I know that the media's portrayal is almost always inaccurate. Anytime I'm ever contacted by the media, I consistently refuse to offer any comment whatsoever because I've seen how twisted comments are by the media. I do appreciate that "temporary insanity" is merely legal defense terminology, rather than a medical definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I do appreciate that "temporary insanity" is merely legal defense terminology, rather than a medical definition. No--you misunderstand me: Insanity in and of itself is a legal term. However, even in the legal arena, the term "temporary insanity" is almost never heard. I have never offered an opinion, nor seen one in reports I've reviewed, where the psychologist asserted that the defendant was "temporarily insane." Because I see this term, it leads me to believe, as typical, that the newspaper article is less concerned about accuracy and more concerned about selling newspapers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I don't think anyone (other than perhaps you) has suggested such a conclusion. How is that? Did I misread your post? You seemed to say that you were not cool with the notion of possibly releasing someone, presumably even after they were deemed cured of the mental illness that caused them to kill someone. Is that not an accurate summary of your statement? So, wouldn't that imply a lack of faith in the notion that someone in this situation could be cured? Again, if we're to assume that this guy is not fixable, why bother with the insanity plea? If the only difference is that we send one guy to prison for life and the other to a mental hospital for life, that seems like sort of a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 No--you misunderstand me: Insanity in and of itself is a legal term. However, even in the legal arena, the term "temporary insanity" is almost never heard. I have never offered an opinion, nor seen one in reports I've reviewed, where the psychologist asserted that the defendant was "temporarily insane." Because I see this term, it leads me to believe, as typical, that the newspaper article is less concerned about accuracy and more concerned about selling newspapers. I am not sure that I agree 100%. I located at least 31 California appellate cases from 1934 to present that do recognize "temporary insanity" as a proper legal term. And I would be shocked if California was the only state that does so. One such appellate decision stated, in reviewing the lower court's jury instructions on the matter, "In advising the jury on this issue the trial court unequivocally stated that the law recognizes temporary insanity at the time of the commission of a homicide as a defense 'just as much as permanent insanity if the temporary insanity meets the requirements of the law, that is, if the defendant at the time of the homicide was so mentally deranged from any cause as not to understand the nature and quality of her acts, or, if she did understand them, could not distinguish between right and wrong in reference to such acts and if you believe from the evidence by a preponderance thereof that the defendant, at the time she committed the homicide, was temporarily insane within the meaning of the law, then regardless of whether the defendant was sane before and after the time when the acts were committed, it is your duty to bring in a verdict that defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense.' We find no reversible error in the record. The trial judge accorded appellant a fair and impartial trial upon the issue raised by her plea of not guilty by reason of insanity." People v. Donegan, 32 Cal.App.2d 716 In Pennywell v. Rushen, 705 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1983), the Ninth Circuit found no federal due process violation arising out of alleged error in the trial court's entering of an "not guilty by reasons of insanity" plea on behalf of a defendant who wished to plead only "temporary insanity." I most certainly agree that the legal standard at the moment of the crime is the same regardless (i.e., legally insane). However, it appears that the subcategory of "temporary insanity" is not merely the product of hack journalism - that it is legitimately rooted in authority, even if the term is frequently misused by those who do not understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) How is that? Did I misread your post? You seemed to say that you were not cool with the notion of possibly releasing someone, presumably even after they were deemed cured of the mental illness that caused them to kill someone. Is that not an accurate summary of your statement? So, wouldn't that imply a lack of faith in the notion that someone in this situation could be cured? Again, if we're to assume that this guy is not fixable, why bother with the insanity plea? If the only difference is that we send one guy to prison for life and the other to a mental hospital for life, that seems like sort of a waste of time. No. I am merely curious about the nature and effectiveness of the safeguards that are put in place before an undisputed killer with a history of insanity is released back into society. Edited June 10, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I didn't realize you had had the opportunity to review court records/documents. I also didn't realize that you were in contact with the staff at Florida State Hospital and they had communicated their plans regarding discharge to you. Surely, you're not forming your opinion by one newspaper article whose primary job it is is to sell newspapers? You think you have a point here, don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Now I know why Red Bull is the most popular drink on set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Wasnt this all covered in "A Time to Kill"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.