The insanity defense didn't get changed this Legislative session, but I did hear talk that it's not fair to keep from the jury what happens when a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity. I've always thought that was an argument the defense shouldn't make, and today's Houston Chronicle article confirms my belief.

Would a jury seriously consider NGI if they were told that the defendant could be back on the streets within a few years, even though he poked out the eyes of his victim?

Read the article.