I do not agree with a Twinkies causing someone to murder someone. I know children can become very hyper and a little mean from too much sugar but an adult knows there limits on what they can eat and handle. I hold the man responsible for his own actions. They are right about if it had been a mayor or president there would have been more anger and madness and made people want more action. People can not go around eating Twinkies and blaming sugar for their crimes. I believe people need to grow up and accept responsibility for their own actions. Next thing you know they will be wanting to take Twinkies off the shelves. dolphin 123
I truly agree with this person's comment and think that people do need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions but in today's world that doesn't always happen. Also Twinkies should be the cause of murder or any crime committed. I would think Twinkies are just personal pleasure and consumption and not a indicator for someone to commit a crime. Hunter123
100% agreed people need to stop blaming factors for their actions rather then taking the responsibility we are not animals that only work off basic instinct and have been giving the ability to check and think about our urges if your to weak to curve some of them then you will be treated accordingly and punished for it. Why do kids get time outs so they learn to control their behavior if you blame it on add then they will think they have a one way ticket to do what ever they want. Life is hard for every one doesn't give you the right to act like an idiot. Scraut22
I as well agree with this. If everyone did this then crime would be through the roof and nobody would be in prison. There would also be much less junk food to reduce crime and the citizens that don’t “go crazy” from eating junk food would have to suffer as well. I agree that people do need to learn how to handle things better.
Every thing you said was correct. growing up and taking responsibility for your actions is a huge part of being an adult. All this was was and excuse so he would be let off easy. also who ever was in the jury or the judge must have been ignorant. Bearsfootball123
I agree also that people should take responsibility for their actions. Its lame to blame things such as sugar in twinkies. My thought was did White preconceive the thought of killing Milk because he knew it would possibly get him a lighter sentence. I mean considering the way society viewed gays. And could throwing the twinkie defense in have been a publicity stunt to distract society from what the real motivation for killing both men was? BeeRose34
I believe that committing a crime due to a junk food such as a Twinkie is not possible. I think that the Twinkie would cause health problem with the consumption rate that Dan white was apparently doing in the article. To me, eating a Twinkie was cause a sugar rush and not a motive to go kill someone at all. Personally I think Mr. White was just using a Twinkie as a scapegoat and not wanting too reveal his true motives in killing those two people. I think Dan white is a typical crime just with an eating disorder and in this case it was Twinkies. He obviously used that as an excuse like most criminals would use excuses to get out getting a more serious sentence like the death penalty. Hunter123
You are kind of assuming that it was White's idea to use the Twinkie defense. It could of been the lawyer's idea. Lawyers will do about anything to win a case. One of them saw the opportunity to use it and took it. Obviously it was not handled the correct way at all. And I don't think he had an eating disorder. White was a depressed man who had issues. Eating that many Twinkies in one sitting doesn't necessarily mean you have a disorder. bama123
I feel you didn't read the article fully. It talks about the twinkie defense as being just a easy way to get peoples attention. The real cause was depression which we now know that depression worsens when eating unhealthy and not exercising. Also the twinkie defense was thought up by a writer not the lawyer. The lawyer simply stated that the twinkies and coke furthered him into depression. Zipping123
I also believe the Twinkies lie was a way to draw attention and get out of the punishment for the crime he committed. How can anyone blame a food item for them taking another persons life? The depression part i agree with also. Depression had big part in it and depression can cause people to do bad things and even have bad thoughts. dolphin 123
After reading this article is seems to me that "the Twinkie defense" was simply made to make the story more "interesting" to citizens. It grabbed people's attention more than any other title would. Depression seemed to play a key role in White's issues and it said in the article that someone with symptoms of depression could be subject to mood swings caused by consumption of a lot of sugar. But given that statement, the Twinkies still didn't cause anything. If it did anything all it did was merely heighten what was already there, depression. At the end it went into detail about what White really did the day he committed the murders and it sounded pretty premeditated to me. I'm not sure if he just had a really good lawyer or what but somehow he got off very easily. Twinkies in my opinion did not cause this. There could of been a couple different reasons, the homophobic issue or the depression, I'm not quite sure. I do know that the case was not handled the correct way and I would hope that in this day and age that would never even be up for discussion in a courtroom.
I feel the same way how the title was there to grab peoples attention and to cover the death of a gay man. And how there was more going on in Dan's head than just too much sugar.USMCgrunt_123
I agree I feel like it was a “public stunt” to catch society’s attention to go read that article, because in reality eating that many Twinkies would cause health issues rather than putting you in the state of mind to go commit murder. Therefore too many sweets could never be used as an excuse in why you murdered someone. Rawr_BIL_123
Well that article painted a whole new picture. Everyone believes what got him a lighter sentencing was the Twinkie defense and the fact that Milk was gay. If you had a job that you felt you needed to resign from so you could better your family you do it right? It was also stated in the article that if he wanted his job back he could have it. "Moscone publicly stated that if White changed his mind, he could have his job back". Only five days later he wanted his job back but the seat had been filled with another person that Milk had wanted appointed. The mayor agreed and I know he should have thought more clearly but I'd want blood too. I would understand if it had been a few months but five days? Seriously I know someone that is depressed may go over the edge. This murder was not about sex, love, or passion. It was cold hard revenge and yes it may have been premeditated but so is a women killing her abusive husband in the middle of the night while he sleeps. He is not innocent by any means he did kill them but it seems he was drove insane.The jury on the other hand probably was homophobic and sympathetic to a man that has a pregnant wife. Also it has been proven that what you eat effects how you feel so if he was eating junk food it would have sent him further into depression. Zipping123
I understand your point about wanting blood because you would be unable to get a job back after resigning less than a week before, but would it really drive you as far as murder? This is the true issue here. There is a difference between seeking revenge by trying to unseat the person who took your job and seeking revenge by murdering someone. In my opinion, the premeditation factor is key in this case. You make valid points here and I like how you looked at the situation as if you were in White's shoes. A lot of people look at it from the other end of the spectrum. Well done. GoCardsGo_123
The Twinkie defense seems so far out there and I don’t know what I really think about it. If a guy kills another because of a sugar rush there has to be something else wrong with that individual. The Twinkie defense while the defendant ate a whole lot of Twinkies was just part of the reason the case was called that. It helps cover that a gay man was killed and it looked better in the publics eyes. In my opinion anyone that can commit murder like that and does should be locked up for a long time. And if they claim they where crazy then they would need to get lock up in a mental hospital. Because in Dan’s position he said that Twinkies made his crazy and that its ok if he murders someone when he eats too many. USMCgrunt_123
I agree that it was far out and it made it to were you really didn't what to think about it. And i also agree with because he ate a lot that's the only reason the case got the name "the Twinkie defense" to cover the fact that a gay man was killled. Jays123
I agree with USMCgrunt_123 that someone who commits a crime like this should get locked up or even given the death penalty. and if it is proven that there is something mentally wrong with them they should be like he said locked up in a mental institution. I really dont think that just because someone states that they were crazy at the moment should give them a lesser sentence or none at all. -Arrow123
After reading the article,"the Twinkie defense" it made me think of how this could happen. The article revels that it was really depression he was going through but the fact that he got off because of what he ate and the fact that Milk was gay helped a little bit too. I cant get over the fact that tried to make people believe that all the sugar lead him to do this. I mean ive had my fair share of sugar and it does not change my thought process that much. Though i was not going through depression as he was. But when you think about it still sugar may make you hyper but to the point of murder I do not believe that is possible it had to be a bigger case of depression and other problems he was going through that the article did not provide. I mean you can eat your feelings away but I dont believe it can lead to murder. Jays123
I agree with your statement Jays123. Although the Twinkie defense was related to the case it was still Dan White's depression that was the main reason for the actions that he took that day. personally I think that the twinkie was a comfort food used by White when he was already depressed. Runner123
The Twinkie Defense seems to be blown out of proportion even to be used as a partial statement of defense is unbelievable because when Dan White ate a lot of junk food he would have succumbed to a sugar high which makes you really tired and not want to do anything else but to sleep. In the article a juror from the case stated that they did not use the Twinkie defense as a mitigating factor. My opinion is that Dan White should have been charged with first degree murder because of his actions of purposely going through the basement window in order to evade the metal detectors and he shot the mayor first, reloaded his revolver and shot Harvey Milk. White would have had time to cool off from where he was before going to City Hall, but the jury determined if there was a cooling off period and evidently they decided to charge him instead with voluntary manslaughter. The Twinkie defense is still something new to me and the first time I ever heard about it I thought to myself how crazy it is to work as a defense against a murder case. Runner123
I think its completely absurd to give some one a pass for depression or what ever other mental health problems they may have. Seek treatment if there is non which i doubt due to the programs all across the country then you might have a understandable case how ever how many people with mental disorders do not commit crime? I bet far more people have disorders and are still good people then the ones who use it as an excuses for what they do or have done. My dad is bi polar takes meds for it but only recently has he started them. He has never killed any one why because he knows even though he may have bad thoughts or feeling that doesn't make it right to act on them we are humans not basic instinctual animals and have the ability to reassess our emotions or primal urges. Unless you have a severe mental illness there in no excuse. Control your self like a human or be treated like an animal. Scraut22
I think you are right about people needing treatment if they have mental illnesses, but in 1978 was there programs for people with mental illnesses like they have today? I don't think so. And you didn't really talk about the article at all either. Dan White was suffering from depression not Bipolar disorder. And even if someone has a mental disability then they still should deal with their actions in a jail or mental facility for the rest of their lives. baseball123
In my opinion, the notion of someone eating a diet which is high in sugar, twinkies in this case, causing them to go out and kill two people is incredibly farfetched. The point in the argument which swayed my thinking was when they began to describe how White had the premeditated thoughts and actions to go and kill Milk and Moscone. White deliberately got his gun and deliberately avoided security measures in City Hall in order to commit the murders of these two men. I believe the idea that high sugar diets causing depression and mood swings has some validity, but in this case it is suggesting he was moved to kill these people because he had a bad diet and that is what I certainly do not agree with. GoCardsGo_123
I do see how what you are saying about the diet causing some of it. However, I also believe that there is no way that it could have made him pursue to kil two people. Defiently madness, and we all know there was more to this case, but it had gotten covered up. saxophones123
In my opinion, I think that the lawyer of the defendant was looking for any trick to keep his client, Dan White, from receiving the death penalty. To say that someone killed multiple people because he had too much sugar in their system is pathetic. If the man had the premeditated thought about killing someone then went out and did it, then they should be guilty of murder. I think Dan White most likely suffering from some sort of mental illness and should have served more than a few years of jail time after what he did. And the fact they released him early for good behavior after voluntary manslaughter shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. baseball123
I agree that White's lawyer was looking for a trick or loophole to get White the least harsh punishment that he could. That is lawyers' jobs. I also agree that his high sugar diet did not make him kill two people. I think that while in jail, White should have gotten psychiatric help and he should have not gotten released early. Milly123
Well you have to love the media, they took the title “The Twinkie Defense” and ran with it. The article even says that Twinkies were barely even talked about during the trial. I personally do not believe that if you eat mass amounts of sugar you are going to go out and kill two people in cold blood, weather you are 2 years old, 30 years old, or even 87 years old. You can’t commit double murder just because you have a sugar rush. However I do believe if you lose your job to an openly gay politician in 1978, while you wife is pregnant, and you are suffering with an already bad case of depression. You can slip future in to your depression losing all hope and care for life, and go on a killing spree at work just as Mr. White did. KING-OF-BATTLE123
I think he should’ve been charged for the murder. He should’ve known that anything with sugar would make him overreact and do something drastic. Just because you ate too many Twinkies doesn’t mean that you should be excused for a crime. If it was a kid it would be ever more understandable since most kids tend to not know that sugar makes you hyper. Plus it’s stated that the defense is a myth. I think that it was used mainly to get White off the hook and to get a bigger audience. I also think that the junk food didn’t help him do it and he did it on his own accord and without the outside help of food. Also the fact that Twinkies where in mentioned in passing and was not one of the main junk foods that he ate also helps to supports this. So I think that it was all to just get him out of jail.
I believe that the whole thing is a joke. If some one is so mentally unstable that a little bit of sugar can make them what to kill someone then no matter what they need help. You can not blame sugar for a situation like this because there are many other things that have as much or more sugar than Twinkies. Also if Twinkies made a man mentally unstable they should not be out on the market. People go to jail for more than five years for a less serious crime every day, so I think he should have payed the price that every one else pays when they kill some one.
It should've been obvious in this case that Dan White had some type of mental illness. There is no way that eating sweets could lead to any type of criminal act especially murder. I’m not really sure if five years, one month and nine days was enough time; it’s just hard to judge that for someone with a mental illness in my opinion. Dan White also should have been sent to some type of institution for rehabilitation after his jail time to help with his illness. Reason being is because if it happened once it could’ve easily happened again. I feel it was more than just depression for White, because depression should not lead to the murdering of two people, it had to of been something else, but different people could react differently from having depression so it just all depends. But this article should have never been named the “Twinkie Defense” from the start. Rawr_BIL_123
The article made it sound like the sugar was only a part of the entire defense. The more I read into this whole thing the less sense it seems to make to me, as though distorted with time.snarlymocha325
I am surpised White got off so easy, even when mental issues are involved the sentence isn't usually that light. I bet that the twinkie defense was mainly for publicity. Someone said it in the court room and they ran with it, I am sure the guy was depressed but that doesn't mean it's ok to kill someone and get off so lightly. I feel this guy had anger issues and was a very impulsive person. I wonder if the thought crossed his mind that if he killed Milk that society would let him off easy? BeeRose34
I think that the entirity of the twinkie defense is one hundred percent ridiclous. For a court to even listen to someone who claims that he had eaten a twinke and was on a sugar rush and just killed Milk for no reason is madness. I personally believe that the courts made this all up souly because Milk was gay. Which makes the law system questioned in my eyes. Saxophones123
I believe that the jury got the verdict wrong. As people have said before, White should have known that sugar would make him act up. However, I do not believe that the Twinkies are what made him commit the murders. Obviously he had thought about it for a while because no one decides to commit a murder on a whim. The simple fact that he immediately reloaded his gun after shooting Moscone makes it clear that it was his intent from the beginning to shoot Milk as well. I think that White could not have been luckier with the sentence he got. I think that if people realized that he was becoming depressed he should have immediately gotten help for his state of mind. Especially since a couple Twinkies put him over the edge enough to commit two murders. I do not think that there was enough homophobia in the courtroom to make a difference in the ruling. Milly123
I do not agree with this twinke defense sugar is sugar not a drug. how do twinkies make you kill .? that's like saying I gave my sister to many cookies and she went and killed the neighbor reguardless .. every person who committed a crime should be held for it so he should of been guilty. ICE123
I think this defense is a load of crap, sugar CAN change your being, but I don't think anyone's ever actually gone on a rampage solely on sugar rush. I think this whole case was just awkward and one of those weird things in history that just somehow slipped through the cracks. The fact that it worked says something about our society back then, that it was a little more racist and a little less accepting, and perhaps he just happened to fit the criteria of who could get by with what. I might be being a bit cynical. snarlymocha123
It’s hard to believe anyone who has committed a crime as heinous as murder just because they ate a Twinkie so why would claiming that an individual killed another because they binged on food do to depression stand as a good enough defense that a jury reaches an innocent verdict? I feel that when it comes to the Twinkies Defense verdict the jury was wrong with their decision. But this was back then today we know that a defense such as this one would never hold out in court. Today someone would need to be able to prove that there is something mentally wrong with them to get a strong defense for a verdict such as this. Even if someone could prove that depression lead them to murdering someone they would still get a heavy sentence but a different charge. Back in those days they gave him voluntary manslaughter but today he would get second degree murder which is punishable with 20 years to life. I feel that a binge of sweets because your depressed is not a good enough defense as to why you murdered an individual. -Arrow123
I agree that his binge of junk food would not be enough supporting facts to use as an excuse for his actions. I think that more so was his background and lack of diversity in the Jury selection that may have given him an unfair advantage, thus his light sentencing. -HappyWalrus123
I sense that Twinky Defense is more/less the pop culture terminology in contrast of what the event was really all about, as criticism about Dan Whites activity and mindset before the murders.
The Jury selection of upper middle class white people, some who may have been homophobic would largely be the strong issue at hand. However, according to a juror Darlene Bentor "it wasn't about twinkies or gays", but the lack of prosecution actually doing their job because they thought the case was so clear cut.
Also White's background perhaps had much to do with the courts decision as well, him also being a successful suburbanite of a similar background for the jury caused them to pity him more?
Juveniles on the other hand, from my own experience relating to inequalities of punishment I remember in high school, a girl who was of a lower class stature in the community. Was accused of stealing money from a cheerleaders purse and was immediately suspended without any evidence against her. However those same cheerleaders stole a cell phone from a student later that year and were only given a firm scolding.
Had White been gay, or of a minority race or even perhaps still white heterosexual, but from a working class to more poor neighborhood the outcome of that trial would have been different.
I don't think it had as much to do with twinkies or sexual preference as much as it had to do with where he came from. - HappyWalrus123
I do not agree with a Twinkies causing someone to murder someone. I know children can become very hyper and a little mean from too much sugar but an adult knows there limits on what they can eat and handle. I hold the man responsible for his own actions. They are right about if it had been a mayor or president there would have been more anger and madness and made people want more action. People can not go around eating Twinkies and blaming sugar for their crimes. I believe people need to grow up and accept responsibility for their own actions. Next thing you know they will be wanting to take Twinkies off the shelves. dolphin 123
ReplyDeleteI truly agree with this person's comment and think that people do need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions but in today's world that doesn't always happen. Also Twinkies should be the cause of murder or any crime committed. I would think Twinkies are just personal pleasure and consumption and not a indicator for someone to commit a crime.
DeleteHunter123
100% agreed people need to stop blaming factors for their actions rather then taking the responsibility we are not animals that only work off basic instinct and have been giving the ability to check and think about our urges if your to weak to curve some of them then you will be treated accordingly and punished for it. Why do kids get time outs so they learn to control their behavior if you blame it on add then they will think they have a one way ticket to do what ever they want. Life is hard for every one doesn't give you the right to act like an idiot. Scraut22
DeleteI as well agree with this. If everyone did this then crime would be through the roof and nobody would be in prison. There would also be much less junk food to reduce crime and the citizens that don’t “go crazy” from eating junk food would have to suffer as well. I agree that people do need to learn how to handle things better.
DeleteUNSC_ODST_123
Every thing you said was correct. growing up and taking responsibility for your actions is a huge part of being an adult. All this was was and excuse so he would be let off easy. also who ever was in the jury or the judge must have been ignorant. Bearsfootball123
DeleteI agree also that people should take responsibility for their actions. Its lame to blame things such as sugar in twinkies. My thought was did White preconceive the thought of killing Milk because he knew it would possibly get him a lighter sentence. I mean considering the way society viewed gays. And could throwing the twinkie defense in have been a publicity stunt to distract society from what the real motivation for killing both men was? BeeRose34
DeleteBeeRose123
DeleteI believe that committing a crime due to a junk food such as a Twinkie is not possible. I think that the Twinkie would cause health problem with the consumption rate that Dan white was apparently doing in the article. To me, eating a Twinkie was cause a sugar rush and not a motive to go kill someone at all. Personally I think Mr. White was just using a Twinkie as a scapegoat and not wanting too reveal his true motives in killing those two people. I think Dan white is a typical crime just with an eating disorder and in this case it was Twinkies. He obviously used that as an excuse like most criminals would use excuses to get out getting a more serious sentence like the death penalty. Hunter123
ReplyDeleteYou are kind of assuming that it was White's idea to use the Twinkie defense. It could of been the lawyer's idea. Lawyers will do about anything to win a case. One of them saw the opportunity to use it and took it. Obviously it was not handled the correct way at all. And I don't think he had an eating disorder. White was a depressed man who had issues. Eating that many Twinkies in one sitting doesn't necessarily mean you have a disorder. bama123
DeleteI feel you didn't read the article fully. It talks about the twinkie defense as being just a easy way to get peoples attention. The real cause was depression which we now know that depression worsens when eating unhealthy and not exercising. Also the twinkie defense was thought up by a writer not the lawyer. The lawyer simply stated that the twinkies and coke furthered him into depression. Zipping123
DeleteI also believe the Twinkies lie was a way to draw attention and get out of the punishment for the crime he committed. How can anyone blame a food item for them taking another persons life? The depression part i agree with also. Depression had big part in it and depression can cause people to do bad things and even have bad thoughts. dolphin 123
DeleteAfter reading this article is seems to me that "the Twinkie defense" was simply made to make the story more "interesting" to citizens. It grabbed people's attention more than any other title would. Depression seemed to play a key role in White's issues and it said in the article that someone with symptoms of depression could be subject to mood swings caused by consumption of a lot of sugar. But given that statement, the Twinkies still didn't cause anything. If it did anything all it did was merely heighten what was already there, depression. At the end it went into detail about what White really did the day he committed the murders and it sounded pretty premeditated to me. I'm not sure if he just had a really good lawyer or what but somehow he got off very easily. Twinkies in my opinion did not cause this. There could of been a couple different reasons, the homophobic issue or the depression, I'm not quite sure. I do know that the case was not handled the correct way and I would hope that in this day and age that would never even be up for discussion in a courtroom.
ReplyDelete^ I posted the above comment but forgot to name it! bama123
DeleteI feel the same way how the title was there to grab peoples attention and to cover the death of a gay man. And how there was more going on in Dan's head than just too much sugar.USMCgrunt_123
DeleteI agree I feel like it was a “public stunt” to catch society’s attention to go read that article, because in reality eating that many Twinkies would cause health issues rather than putting you in the state of mind to go commit murder. Therefore too many sweets could never be used as an excuse in why you murdered someone. Rawr_BIL_123
DeleteWell that article painted a whole new picture. Everyone believes what got him a lighter sentencing was the Twinkie defense and the fact that Milk was gay. If you had a job that you felt you needed to resign from so you could better your family you do it right? It was also stated in the article that if he wanted his job back he could have it. "Moscone publicly stated that if White changed his mind, he could have his job back". Only five days later he wanted his job back but the seat had been filled with another person that Milk had wanted appointed. The mayor agreed and I know he should have thought more clearly but I'd want blood too. I would understand if it had been a few months but five days? Seriously I know someone that is depressed may go over the edge. This murder was not about sex, love, or passion. It was cold hard revenge and yes it may have been premeditated but so is a women killing her abusive husband in the middle of the night while he sleeps. He is not innocent by any means he did kill them but it seems he was drove insane.The jury on the other hand probably was homophobic and sympathetic to a man that has a pregnant wife. Also it has been proven that what you eat effects how you feel so if he was eating junk food it would have sent him further into depression. Zipping123
ReplyDeleteI understand your point about wanting blood because you would be unable to get a job back after resigning less than a week before, but would it really drive you as far as murder? This is the true issue here. There is a difference between seeking revenge by trying to unseat the person who took your job and seeking revenge by murdering someone. In my opinion, the premeditation factor is key in this case. You make valid points here and I like how you looked at the situation as if you were in White's shoes. A lot of people look at it from the other end of the spectrum. Well done.
DeleteGoCardsGo_123
The Twinkie defense seems so far out there and I don’t know what I really think about it. If a guy kills another because of a sugar rush there has to be something else wrong with that individual. The Twinkie defense while the defendant ate a whole lot of Twinkies was just part of the reason the case was called that. It helps cover that a gay man was killed and it looked better in the publics eyes. In my opinion anyone that can commit murder like that and does should be locked up for a long time. And if they claim they where crazy then they would need to get lock up in a mental hospital. Because in Dan’s position he said that Twinkies made his crazy and that its ok if he murders someone when he eats too many. USMCgrunt_123
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was far out and it made it to were you really didn't what to think about it. And i also agree with because he ate a lot that's the only reason the case got the name "the Twinkie defense" to cover the fact that a gay man was killled. Jays123
DeleteI agree with USMCgrunt_123 that someone who commits a crime like this should get locked up or even given the death penalty. and if it is proven that there is something mentally wrong with them they should be like he said locked up in a mental institution. I really dont think that just because someone states that they were crazy at the moment should give them a lesser sentence or none at all.
Delete-Arrow123
After reading the article,"the Twinkie defense" it made me think of how this could happen. The article revels that it was really depression he was going through but the fact that he got off because of what he ate and the fact that Milk was gay helped a little bit too. I cant get over the fact that tried to make people believe that all the sugar lead him to do this. I mean ive had my fair share of sugar and it does not change my thought process that much. Though i was not going through depression as he was. But when you think about it still sugar may make you hyper but to the point of murder I do not believe that is possible it had to be a bigger case of depression and other problems he was going through that the article did not provide. I mean you can eat your feelings away but I dont believe it can lead to murder. Jays123
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement Jays123. Although the Twinkie defense was related to the case it was still Dan White's depression that was the main reason for the actions that he took that day. personally I think that the twinkie was a comfort food used by White when he was already depressed. Runner123
DeleteThe Twinkie Defense seems to be blown out of proportion even to be used as a partial statement of defense is unbelievable because when Dan White ate a lot of junk food he would have succumbed to a sugar high which makes you really tired and not want to do anything else but to sleep. In the article a juror from the case stated that they did not use the Twinkie defense as a mitigating factor. My opinion is that Dan White should have been charged with first degree murder because of his actions of purposely going through the basement window in order to evade the metal detectors and he shot the mayor first, reloaded his revolver and shot Harvey Milk. White would have had time to cool off from where he was before going to City Hall, but the jury determined if there was a cooling off period and evidently they decided to charge him instead with voluntary manslaughter. The Twinkie defense is still something new to me and the first time I ever heard about it I thought to myself how crazy it is to work as a defense against a murder case. Runner123
ReplyDeleteI think its completely absurd to give some one a pass for depression or what ever other mental health problems they may have. Seek treatment if there is non which i doubt due to the programs all across the country then you might have a understandable case how ever how many people with mental disorders do not commit crime? I bet far more people have disorders and are still good people then the ones who use it as an excuses for what they do or have done. My dad is bi polar takes meds for it but only recently has he started them. He has never killed any one why because he knows even though he may have bad thoughts or feeling that doesn't make it right to act on them we are humans not basic instinctual animals and have the ability to reassess our emotions or primal urges. Unless you have a severe mental illness there in no excuse. Control your self like a human or be treated like an animal. Scraut22
ReplyDeleteI think you are right about people needing treatment if they have mental illnesses, but in 1978 was there programs for people with mental illnesses like they have today? I don't think so. And you didn't really talk about the article at all either. Dan White was suffering from depression not Bipolar disorder. And even if someone has a mental disability then they still should deal with their actions in a jail or mental facility for the rest of their lives. baseball123
DeleteIn my opinion, the notion of someone eating a diet which is high in sugar, twinkies in this case, causing them to go out and kill two people is incredibly farfetched. The point in the argument which swayed my thinking was when they began to describe how White had the premeditated thoughts and actions to go and kill Milk and Moscone. White deliberately got his gun and deliberately avoided security measures in City Hall in order to commit the murders of these two men. I believe the idea that high sugar diets causing depression and mood swings has some validity, but in this case it is suggesting he was moved to kill these people because he had a bad diet and that is what I certainly do not agree with.
ReplyDeleteGoCardsGo_123
I do see how what you are saying about the diet causing some of it. However, I also believe that there is no way that it could have made him pursue to kil two people. Defiently madness, and we all know there was more to this case, but it had gotten covered up. saxophones123
DeleteIn my opinion, I think that the lawyer of the defendant was looking for any trick to keep his client, Dan White, from receiving the death penalty. To say that someone killed multiple people because he had too much sugar in their system is pathetic. If the man had the premeditated thought about killing someone then went out and did it, then they should be guilty of murder. I think Dan White most likely suffering from some sort of mental illness and should have served more than a few years of jail time after what he did. And the fact they released him early for good behavior after voluntary manslaughter shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. baseball123
ReplyDeleteI agree that White's lawyer was looking for a trick or loophole to get White the least harsh punishment that he could. That is lawyers' jobs. I also agree that his high sugar diet did not make him kill two people. I think that while in jail, White should have gotten psychiatric help and he should have not gotten released early.
DeleteMilly123
Well you have to love the media, they took the title “The Twinkie Defense” and ran with it. The article even says that Twinkies were barely even talked about during the trial. I personally do not believe that if you eat mass amounts of sugar you are going to go out and kill two people in cold blood, weather you are 2 years old, 30 years old, or even 87 years old. You can’t commit double murder just because you have a sugar rush. However I do believe if you lose your job to an openly gay politician in 1978, while you wife is pregnant, and you are suffering with an already bad case of depression. You can slip future in to your depression losing all hope and care for life, and go on a killing spree at work just as Mr. White did. KING-OF-BATTLE123
ReplyDeleteI think he should’ve been charged for the murder. He should’ve known that anything with sugar would make him overreact and do something drastic. Just because you ate too many Twinkies doesn’t mean that you should be excused for a crime. If it was a kid it would be ever more understandable since most kids tend to not know that sugar makes you hyper. Plus it’s stated that the defense is a myth. I think that it was used mainly to get White off the hook and to get a bigger audience. I also think that the junk food didn’t help him do it and he did it on his own accord and without the outside help of food. Also the fact that Twinkies where in mentioned in passing and was not one of the main junk foods that he ate also helps to supports this. So I think that it was all to just get him out of jail.
ReplyDeleteUNSC_ODST_123
I believe that the whole thing is a joke. If some one is so mentally unstable that a little bit of sugar can make them what to kill someone then no matter what they need help. You can not blame sugar for a situation like this because there are many other things that have as much or more sugar than Twinkies. Also if Twinkies made a man mentally unstable they should not be out on the market. People go to jail for more than five years for a less serious crime every day, so I think he should have payed the price that every one else pays when they kill some one.
ReplyDeleteforgot to to put my name Bearsfootball123
ReplyDeleteIt should've been obvious in this case that Dan White had some type of mental illness. There is no way that eating sweets could lead to any type of criminal act especially murder. I’m not really sure if five years, one month and nine days was enough time; it’s just hard to judge that for someone with a mental illness in my opinion. Dan White also should have been sent to some type of institution for rehabilitation after his jail time to help with his illness. Reason being is because if it happened once it could’ve easily happened again. I feel it was more than just depression for White, because depression should not lead to the murdering of two people, it had to of been something else, but different people could react differently from having depression so it just all depends. But this article should have never been named the “Twinkie Defense” from the start. Rawr_BIL_123
ReplyDeleteThe article made it sound like the sugar was only a part of the entire defense. The more I read into this whole thing the less sense it seems to make to me, as though distorted with time.snarlymocha325
DeleteI am surpised White got off so easy, even when mental issues are involved the sentence isn't usually that light. I bet that the twinkie defense was mainly for publicity. Someone said it in the court room and they ran with it, I am sure the guy was depressed but that doesn't mean it's ok to kill someone and get off so lightly. I feel this guy had anger issues and was a very impulsive person. I wonder if the thought crossed his mind that if he killed Milk that society would let him off easy? BeeRose34
ReplyDeleteBeeRose123
DeleteI think that the entirity of the twinkie defense is one hundred percent ridiclous. For a court to even listen to someone who claims that he had eaten a twinke and was on a sugar rush and just killed Milk for no reason is madness. I personally believe that the courts made this all up souly because Milk was gay. Which makes the law system questioned in my eyes. Saxophones123
ReplyDeleteI believe that the jury got the verdict wrong. As people have said before, White should have known that sugar would make him act up. However, I do not believe that the Twinkies are what made him commit the murders. Obviously he had thought about it for a while because no one decides to commit a murder on a whim. The simple fact that he immediately reloaded his gun after shooting Moscone makes it clear that it was his intent from the beginning to shoot Milk as well. I think that White could not have been luckier with the sentence he got. I think that if people realized that he was becoming depressed he should have immediately gotten help for his state of mind. Especially since a couple Twinkies put him over the edge enough to commit two murders. I do not think that there was enough homophobia in the courtroom to make a difference in the ruling.
ReplyDeleteMilly123
I do not agree with this twinke defense sugar is sugar not a drug. how do twinkies make you kill .? that's like saying I gave my sister to many cookies and she went and killed the neighbor reguardless .. every person who committed a crime should be held for it so he should of been guilty.
ReplyDeleteICE123
I think this defense is a load of crap, sugar CAN change your being, but I don't think anyone's ever actually gone on a rampage solely on sugar rush. I think this whole case was just awkward and one of those weird things in history that just somehow slipped through the cracks. The fact that it worked says something about our society back then, that it was a little more racist and a little less accepting, and perhaps he just happened to fit the criteria of who could get by with what. I might be being a bit cynical. snarlymocha123
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to believe anyone who has committed a crime as heinous as murder just because they ate a Twinkie so why would claiming that an individual killed another because they binged on food do to depression stand as a good enough defense that a jury reaches an innocent verdict? I feel that when it comes to the Twinkies Defense verdict the jury was wrong with their decision. But this was back then today we know that a defense such as this one would never hold out in court. Today someone would need to be able to prove that there is something mentally wrong with them to get a strong defense for a verdict such as this. Even if someone could prove that depression lead them to murdering someone they would still get a heavy sentence but a different charge. Back in those days they gave him voluntary manslaughter but today he would get second degree murder which is punishable with 20 years to life. I feel that a binge of sweets because your depressed is not a good enough defense as to why you murdered an individual.
ReplyDelete-Arrow123
I agree that his binge of junk food would not be enough supporting facts to use as an excuse for his actions. I think that more so was his background and lack of diversity in the Jury selection that may have given him an unfair advantage, thus his light sentencing.
Delete-HappyWalrus123
I sense that Twinky Defense is more/less the pop culture terminology in contrast of what the event was really all about, as criticism about Dan Whites activity and mindset before the murders.
ReplyDeleteThe Jury selection of upper middle class white people, some who may have been homophobic would largely be the strong issue at hand. However, according to a juror Darlene Bentor "it wasn't about twinkies or gays", but the lack of prosecution actually doing their job because they thought the case was so clear cut.
Also White's background perhaps had much to do with the courts decision as well, him also being a successful suburbanite of a similar background for the jury caused them to pity him more?
Juveniles on the other hand, from my own experience relating to inequalities of punishment I remember in high school, a girl who was of a lower class stature in the community. Was accused of stealing money from a cheerleaders purse and was immediately suspended without any evidence against her. However those same cheerleaders stole a cell phone from a student later that year and were only given a firm scolding.
Had White been gay, or of a minority race or even perhaps still white heterosexual, but from a working class to more poor neighborhood the outcome of that trial would have been different.
I don't think it had as much to do with twinkies or sexual preference as much as it had to do with where he came from. - HappyWalrus123