Jump to content

Twinkie defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.6.177.176 (talk) at 01:18, 31 January 2008 (restore relevant items: the satire of the "Chewbacca defense" and the non-Twinkie factors that Caen mentioned as possible causes of injustice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The phrase "Twinkie defense" comes from Twinkies, a popular snack food high in sugar.

In jurisprudence, "Twinkie defense" is a derisive[1] label for a criminal defendant's claims that some unusual biological factor entered into the causes or motives of the alleged crime, and that due to this biological factor, either they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law or the criminal liability should be mitigated to a lesser offense. While biological factors may certainly influence behavior, the label of "Twinkie defense" implies that the specific biological factor is one that most people would view as not being sufficient to account for criminal activity, such as the effects of allergies, minor stimulants such as coffee and nicotine, sugar, and/or vitamins.

Origins

The expression derives from the 1979 trial of Dan White, a former San Francisco, California (U.S.) Supervisor who assassinated Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk on November 27, 1978. At the trial, a noted psychiatrist, Martin Blinder, testified that White had been depressed at the time of the crime, pointing to several factors indicating White's depression: he had quit working; he shunned his wife; normally clean-cut, he grew slovenly; normally a fitness fanatic and health food advocate, he had been consuming Twinkies and Coca-Cola. As an incidental note, Blinder mentioned theories that elements of diet could worsen existing mood swings.[2] Another psychiatrist, George Solomon, testified that White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings.[3] The fact that White had killed Moscone and Milk was not challenged, but in part because of the testimony from Blinder and other psychiatrists, the defense successfully argued for a ruling of diminished capacity. White was thus judged incapable of the premeditation required for a murder conviction, and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead. The verdict was unpopular, leading to the White Night Riots.

In stories covering the trial, satirist Paul Krassner had played up the angle of the Twinkie,[2] and he would later claim credit for coining the term "Twinkie defense".[4] The day after the verdict, columnist Herb Caen wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle about the police support for White (a former policeman himself) and their "dislike (understatement) of homosexuals" and mentioned "the Twinkie insanity defense" in passing.[2] News stories published after the trial, however, frequently reported the defense arguments inaccurately, claiming that the defense had presented junk food as the cause of White's depression and/or diminished capacity, instead of symptomatic of and perhaps exacerbating an existing depression.[5]

As a result of the White case, diminished capacity was abolished in 1982 by Proposition 8 and the California legislature, and replaced by "diminished actuality", referring not to the capacity to have a specific intent but to whether a defendant actually had a required intent to commit the crime with which he was charged.[6] By this time the "Twinkie defense" had become such a common referent that one participant waved a Twinkie in the air to make his point.[2] Additionally, California's statutory definitions of premeditation and malice required for murder were eliminated with a return to common law definitions.

In the play The Laramie Project, when Aaron McKinney says that he murdered Matthew Shepard because Shepard made a pass at him, Zackie Salmon likens Aaron McKinney's defense to the Twinkie defense.

During oral Supreme Court arguments in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez (No. 05-352) in April 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia referenced the Twinkie defense in discussion of a defendant's right to counsel of choice: "[If I am a defendant,] I don't want a competent lawyer. I want a lawyer who's going to get me off. I want a lawyer who will invent the Twinkie defense [...] I would not consider the Twinkie defense an invention of a competent lawyer [...] but I want a lawyer who's going to win for me."[7]

Dead Kennedys' "cover" of the song "I Fought the Law" alters the song's lyrics to mock the Twinkie defense and the American legal system as a whole.

In the TV series Jag (Season 5, Episode 13 "Life or Death")The Twinkie Defense was referenced as an example of a "Past heinous crime that was mitigated by circumstances to a lesser charge" by the civilian judges.

In 1982, electronic musician Roy Watson issued an album entitled "The Twinkie Plea" after writer Robert Anton Wilson's variation on the phrase.

Multiple references can be found to "the twinkie defense" on episodes of the popular show "Law and Order"

References

  • California Penal Code Section 25-29 from Findlaw
  • Trial and Error by Paul Tatara for CNN on June 6 1997. Retrieved March 20 2006.
  • Mauro, Tony (2006-04-19). "High Court Debates Defendants' Right to Counsel of Choice". Legal Times. Law.com. Retrieved 2007-02-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

See also

  1. ^ a b c d Pogash, Carol (2003-11-23). "Myth of the 'Twinkie defense'". San Francisco Chronicle. p. D-1. Retrieved 2007-03-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ San Francisco Chronicle, May 10, 1979
  3. ^ Krassner, Paul (2006-08-01). "Ice Cream Treat for Pedophiles". Adult Video News. Retrieved 2007-02-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Snopes: The Twinkie Defense
  5. ^ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/25-29.html
  6. ^ http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-352.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twinkie_defense&oldid=188050523"