This crime was a tragedy, and the judicial decision is open to criticism, but this depiction of it is false. 1/ https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1382649738453917696

Here is the blog post of a French lawyer explaining the psychiatrists' conclusions and the court's ruling. You will need to run it through Google translate but I will post some passages below. https://twitter.com/lfmla24/status/1382840501007704069

TLDR: Two of the three expert panels concluded that the defendant was undergoing an extended period of psychosis that obliterated his judgment. His psychosis wasn't caused by his marijuana use. Instead, he smoked a lot of weed, hoping it would help . . .

because in the early stages of his break he understood what was happening . But it didn't help, it made things worse. Here's a quote from the writer (Google translated).

Because his judgment was obliterated at the time of the crime, by his psychosis, French law requires his commitment to a mental hospital. That's it.

Note: while the killer won't be imprisoned, he will be confined to a mental hospital, probably forever. (Can we all agree that if the doctors are correct, confining him to prison, where he would not receive treatment for his psychosis, would be inhumane?)

The key point is that the experts said although the MJ exacerbated the killer's psychotic episode, it was *still a psychotic episode* that obliterated his judgment. The MJ made things worse, but it was not the cause of his condition. He wasn't merely high.

Hence the critical questions, that Weiss's account obscures: Are they right about this? What does the science say? Is this a clinical judgment, or is there an element of politics or even anti-semiticism in it? Should insanity even be a defense to a hate crime?

But Weiss's dishonest framing -- lying about the doctors' and the court's rationale and conclusions -- erases them and precludes any meaningful discussion of the case. Which does a disservice to all of us, including even, yes, the memory of the victim of this horrible crime.

I'll come back to this thread and quote some more thoughtful critics of the ruling.