In early December, Jessie Bratcher, 27, was placed under the jurisdiction of Oregon's Psychiatric Security Review Board.  A jury in Canyon City, Oregon had found him guilty except for insanity for the murder of Ceja Medina.  According to The Oregonian newspaper, the finding was based solely on Bratcher's post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which had emerged following his military service in Iraq.

It just so happens that a week before the Bratcher sentencing, the United States Supreme Court unanimously found that a Korean War veteran who had been sentence to die for one of two murders he committed should be spared.  When the veteran, George Porter, was originally sentenced, his lawyer did not give the court any information about Porter's military service, childhood history or symptoms of behavioral problems associated with PTSD and brain injury.  This failure violated Porter's constitutional right to effective counsel.

According to the justices:  "Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did."  If the jury had been told about Porter's past, the court says, it might have opted for a life sentence because of "the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter."  The justices cite testimony from the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs that 23% of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment at VA medical facilities have a preliminary diagnosis of PTSD.  They also suggest that evidence of a significant brain abnormality might exempt Porter from capital punishment akin to the exemption for people with "mental retardation."

In Oregon (and around the country) juries are generally skeptical of the insanity defense.  Similarly, district attorneys fight to keep the option of the death penalty for aggravated murder prosecutions.  It's interesting to see how this calculus is affected when the defendant represents values that are held in high regard by a community.  In the case of Bratcher, was the jury more inclined to recognize his insanity defense because he was a veteran and deeply religious?  For Porter, was the Supreme Court more open to considering mitigating factors of childhood abuse because he had exhibited remarkable bravery in battle fifty years ago?

The insanity defense is more than a legal maneuver.  It is an expression of public morality.   It isn't surprising that community values that go beyond mere psychological evaluations and expert opinions become key factors in jury decisions.