Analysis Of Is C. T. A Defense For Murder By Amy Dillard

667 Words3 Pages

Introduction
The article “Is C.T.E. a Defense for Murder,” published in The New York Times, Amy Dillard, an associate professor at Baltimore School of Law, and Lisa A. Tucker, an associate professor at Dexter University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law, give their views about Aaron Hernandez being convicted of murder. They believe that instead of sending him to prison he should have been sent to a therapeutic hospital to help with his brain disease. I chose this article because C.T.E. is a big issue right now with the NFL. This has been affecting many of the players and the sport itself.
Summary
In the article, “Is C.T.E. a Defense for Murder,” Amy Dillard and Lisa A. Tucker discuss C.T.E and believe that it should be a defense for murder. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, commonly referred to as C.T.E., is a brain disease that occurs from repeated brain trauma. This is most common in military veterans or athletes. Dillard and Tucker mention a study that was done at Boston University and 111 brains from diseased NFL football players were examined. They found that all but one of these players had C.T.E. This disease can only be diagnosed …show more content…

What is the point of playing this sport if it can cause such a horrible disease? I feel bad supporting a sport that is affecting these men in such a negative way. This is why I completely agree with Dillard and Tucker, Hernandez should have been put into a hospital not a prison. He had no impulse control and had mood swings because of his brain disease, not because of who he was as a person. Dillard and Tucker said, “Indeed, being afflicted with C.T.E. may well equate insanity.” Hernandez was not in the right state of mind, like they said, he was basically insane. If Hernandez knew for sure that he had C.T.E. at the time of his trial, he could have said he was not guilty by reason of insanity and been sent to a therapeutic hospital, as Dillard and Tucker

Open Document