We Investigated The Insane Loophole That Lets Killers Walk Free

The Supreme Court just issued the ruling on birthright citizenship that we all expected. 

This is a decision that could have been a historic victory for this country if Republicans were anywhere near as effective and as ruthless as the Left is when it comes to selecting Supreme Court justices. 

Democrats pick judges who return victories for their side, in every case, without exception. On the other hand, Republicans pick judges who are preoccupied with preserving the image of the Court as “nonpartisan,” even though Democrats don’t remotely care. They’re going to pack the Supreme Court and destroy the judicial branch the next chance they get. With a handful of notable exceptions — particularly Dobbs — the allegedly conservative justices on the Court have proven to be unreliable and far too timid. 

And on this issue, that’s especially disgraceful. It’s impossible to overstate this: Today’s ruling will directly lead to tens of millions more foreigners flooding into this country, most of whom will have multiple children who will be entitled to a slice of your paycheck. 

Most of them will not even attempt to assimilate, which is why large portions of California now resemble Mexico, why 30% of New Yorkers can’t speak English, and why Somalis run entire neighborhoods in Minneapolis.

None of this is lawful. The 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

During debates on the amendment in the Senate in May of 1866, Senator Lyman Trumbull declared:

The provision is that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Meanwhile, Senator Jacob Howard — a framer of the amendment — stated that he “concurred entirely” with Trumbull. 

He added that the 14th Amendment would not “include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” 

Very clearly, as Michael Anton has pointed out, Howard was listing three categories of people who would not be covered by the amendment — including foreigners and aliens. 

No sane person alive at the time would’ve ever contemplated the idea that, if a Chinese woman flew into Miami while 9 months pregnant, and then gave birth to a child, then the child must automatically become a U.S. citizen. 

They certainly wouldn’t have contemplated the idea that tens of millions of Mexicans, Haitians, and Guatemalans could colonize entire states, simply by invading the country and having a very large number of children. But that’s exactly what transpired. 

And the conservatives on the Supreme Court, given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lawfully preserve the future existence of the United States of America, decided instead to protect their own images as “nonpartisan.” 

Catastrophic does not begin to describe this ruling. It’s yet another way our laws are being bastardized and distorted beyond recognition, transforming this country into something unrecognizable.

Maybe the most egregious example of what I’m talking about — which often flies under the radar — concerns the rise of the so-called “insanity defense.”

If you ask the experts, they’ll tell you that the insanity defense is rarely invoked. And they’ll claim that, in the vast majority of cases, the insanity defense is unsuccessful. And even when the insanity defense works, you’re told, the perpetrators don’t get off easy. 

They supposedly have to endure a very unpleasant stint in a mental hospital, where they’ll probably spend the rest of their lives. You’re just supposed to take their word for all of this.

All of these claims are false. In reality, the insanity defense is one of the most overused — and most effective — legal defenses that criminals can employ. But before we get into the data, I need to highlight this case, which has to be one of the most disturbing examples of what I’m talking about. 

In August of 2021, in Miami-Dade County, Florida, a woman named Precious Bland allegedly drowned her 15-month-old daughter in a bathtub, then stabbed her husband in the head and neck when he tried to intervene. Then she also allegedly stabbed her teenage daughter, for good measure. It seemed like one of the most gruesome crimes imaginable. 

But Bland was, just a few days ago, found “not guilty by reason of insanity,” and won’t spend a day in a mental institution. She’s a free woman. Why? Because — according to the judge and the defense attorneys — COVID made her do it. Yes, COVID compelled her to commit murder and attempted murder. Therefore, she’s free to go. 

Watch:

“As a mother, I’m here to protect my children and love them; that’s what I did all my life. … COVID took that away from me in that moment.”

Just think about the implications of what she’s saying and what the judge agreed with. They’re saying a viral infection — a respiratory illness that affected more than 100 million Americans, and more than 70% of adults — somehow compelled this particular woman to murder her own child, and then stab her husband and her daughter. 

Tens of millions of people contracted COVID without becoming homicidal, but this one person had no other choice but to start allegedly executing her own children. And therefore, we can conclude that COVID makes you commit murder. Apparently, COVID made her believe that Satan was coming and that she needed to baptize her child by committing murder.

What’s the evidence for this? There is none. There isn’t a single person on the planet who can explain how COVID might force someone to commit murder. There’s no scientific paper anywhere that even attempts to outline a biological explanation for any of this. 

They’ll just say that, in rare cases, the brain can become inflamed. Their whole argument is that, out of 100 million people who contracted COVID, some of them eventually went crazy. But that doesn’t tell us anything, because 100 million people is an enormous sample size. 

In a group of 100 million people, every day, some of them are going to act crazy. They might experience some stressful life event, like the death of a family member. They might do a lot of drugs. They might have a really bad stroke. They might simply have bad luck in the genetic lottery. Blaming COVID makes about as much sense as blaming whatever brand of cereal they ate for breakfast. It’s complete nonsense.

But it’s not totally unexpected. This is the natural extension of the fraudulent “Long COVID” narrative, and it’s why we need to push back on those claims as well. To be clear, there is no physical test — no blood test, no scan, nothing — that a doctor can use to diagnose “Long COVID,” much less “COVID psychosis.” 

These are fake disorders that exist entirely in the mind of the person who claims to suffer from them. There’s a reason Long COVID patients are 80% women, 40% of whom had a pre-existing mental health condition. You have a lot of people who are naturally prone to hysteria and panic, and they’re blaming a respiratory virus for all of their problems because they don’t know what else to do. And doctors are happy to go along with it, because they get to bill more therapy sessions and prescribe more medications.

Even the news anchors on the beach in the video don’t seem to believe what they’re hearing. First of all, as best I can tell, this judge — whose name is Miguel de la O — ran unopposed in the last few elections. Voters didn’t have another choice.  

Obviously, that needs to change. If the impeachment isn’t successful, which it should be, then someone needs to run against him. And in the meantime, he should be arrested. This person is dangerous. He’s deliberately allowing murderers to get away with the most heinous crimes imaginable — which is something, as we’ve seen, that’s become all too common in recent years. 

We have an alleged child killer getting zero prison time. Period. She’s not even going to an institution. She’s free to do whatever she wants.

For the record, prosecutors did establish a motive during the trial. They made the case that Bland was upset about the fact that her husband was cheating on her. And she snapped. She became violent. In her hysterical and homicidal state of mind, she killed her child to punish her husband — before trying to kill him as well. 

Watch:

???? INSANE: 43-year-old mother drowned her 15-month-old, stabbed her husband and teen daughter, then blamed COVID for a psychotic episode. A judge ruled her not guilty by reason of insanity.

What a miscarriage of justice. pic.twitter.com/36w7jyKHJZ

— Brandon Tatum (@TheOfficerTatum) June 25, 2026

She wants to “move forward” with her husband and her children — at least, the ones she hasn’t killed yet. Just on the basis of these interviews, all by themselves, this woman deserves life in prison. She’s obviously detached from reality right now, in the present. 

But in the eyes of the legal system, she was just “temporarily insane” when she apparently tried to annihilate her entire family and allegedly murdered her daughter in a bloody bathtub. We’re supposed to believe that she’s completely fine now — which, even if it were true, shouldn’t matter. But it’s obviously not true. You can listen to her for 10 seconds and come to that conclusion.

Outside of random studies by researchers, no one is tracking any important statistics on the insanity defense. And on top of that, even in states where the insanity defense has technically been abolished, it’s still being used in practice. Take Montana, for instance. It’s true that defendants can no longer plead “not guilty by reason of insanity.” But they’re able to claim, as part of a regular “not guilty” plea, that they lacked the state of mind necessary to commit the crime due to some mental illness. 

A few years ago, the Department of Health and Human Services in Virginia put out a study that took a close look at state psychiatric facilities — the places where criminals typically go when they’re found “not guilty by reason of insanity.” In the absence of asylums, this is where we’re sending these people.

This was a long-running study, from 1999 to 2016. And during that period, the researchers tracked the number of so-called “forensic patients” in state mental hospitals over the years. A “forensic patient” is basically a patient who was ordered to go to the facility as part of a sentence, or for an evaluation in a criminal trial, or because they’re considered potentially incompetent to stand trial.

Here’s what they found:

States that are experiencing dramatic pressures accommodating forensic patients describe operating at full capacity. … Overall national trend lines show a 76 percent increase in the number of forensic patients in state hospitals from 1999 to 2014, [though] the trend is not consistent across all states. …

So this is a massive jump, obviously. The number of forensic patients in psychiatric facilities has increased dramatically in just 15 years. And this data is only current as of 2014. We can assume that, based on this trendline, the number has only continued to increase.

What’s interesting is that, not too long ago, when we had asylums, prison was considered the humane option. Bellevue was notorious. They’d cut your brain up if you were too disorderly. 

Meanwhile, the Pennhurst Asylum in Pennsylvania was so creepy and disturbing that they’ve turned it into a haunted house in the present day.

Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If patients weren’t insane when they walked into the asylum, they often lost their minds before they left. They were certainly roughed up. But toward the end of the 20th century, in our quest to be more “humane,” we shut down this asylum — and every other asylum like it. As The New York Times wrote in 1984:

The first lawsuit in the nation to argue that the mentally retarded have a constitutional right to living quarters and education in their home communities has been settled after 10 years with state officials agreeing to shut down the Pennhurst Center for the Mentally Retarded. … ”This makes possible a new life for retarded people, across eastern Pennsylvania, across the commonwealth and across the country,” said Thomas K. Gilhool, an attorney for the state chapter of the Association for Retarded Citizens, an organization that was instrumental in the negotiations.

It seemed like a good idea to people at the time. We gave the “retarded people” a better quality of life. But one of the many second-order effects of this decision is that, without the horror of asylums looming in the back of their minds, criminals gained a brand-new incentive to make phony insanity pleas. 

It used to be that no sane person would plead not guilty by reason of insanity, because being sent to an asylum was effectively torture. It was worse than prison. But now that asylums are gone, and state hospitals are full, we’ve created a very obvious reason for criminals to pretend to be insane. The existence of asylums guaranteed that insanity pleas were mostly legitimate. The absence of asylums ensured that most insanity pleas were fraudulent.

It’s also ironic because, at one point, prisons were considered the progressive option. They were certainly more “progressive” than simply hanging criminals on the spot, which is what we used to do. 

Now prisons are seen as the worst-case scenario in the eyes of the social justice activists. They’ll always complain about any deterrent to criminal behavior. And as of 2026, their complaints have always been effective. Society has always bowed to their demands consistently. That’s why we’re all conditioned to think these insanity pleas — and this insane 76% increase in the number of “forensic patients” — are all totally normal. 

In reality, none of it’s normal. “Insanity” as a distinct medical category is a very new concept, actually. It certainly is not “as old as civilization,” which is a ridiculous claim I’ve seen circulating online. 

Yes, people have behaved in bizarre and evil ways throughout all of history. Roman legal codes addressed people who were mentally incompetent. That’s true. But the idea that these people have a “mental illness,” or that they just need to take a few pills and spend a few nights in a hospital bed, is indeed very new. 

The rules that our courts use to determine insanity were established around 1840 — less than two centuries ago. Before that, we were capable of identifying demons when we saw them. We could identify evil people without pretending that COVID was controlling their minds. And we could dispense with them accordingly. 

One of the major lessons of the latest Supreme Court ruling is that we have drifted very far from the legal system that our founders envisioned. We’ve treated illegal aliens, as well as the allegedly “insane,” in ways that don’t remotely align with the fundamental principles of the Constitution. 

These are all new inventions. And despite what you may be hearing, they don’t derive any legitimacy from precedent or from Supreme Court rulings. 

We are a weaker and more dangerous country for having allowed this madness to continue for so long. But we can reverse a significant amount of this decline, just as quickly as it began, with one three-word policy that’s long overdue: 

Reopen the asylums. 

Give the criminals something to fear that’s infinitely worse than prison. At that point, the most evil among us will have no more incentive to lie. They can finally admit what they are. 

And in turn, while ignoring all of the inevitable wailing from the social justice ladies with the big glasses, we can deal with them accordingly.