STH Newsletter

Occasional updates, plus bonus idiotic ramblings. (We've never sent more than one e-mail per month.)

"Pink Monkey on Mars" Ruling Demonstrates the Usefullness of Legal Precedence

by Aaron Kendall

In 1933, a Californian court ruled that a man who had committed three homicides could not be held accountable for his actions. It seems that he had presented enough evidence to convince the jury that a pink monkey on Mars had controlled his mind during the entire episode of the killing. Of course, he had slipped hallucinogens into the drinks of the jury during the trial, but according to Californian codes of courtroom ethics/politics, such an action is considered completely fair.

The ruling had been ignored and considered a fluke until it was proposed as a precedent in an ongoing trial last week, in which a John Smith stood accused of murdering the entire West Side of Chicago. The judge presiding in the Illinois courtroom accepted the precedent of the earlier ruling, resolving the case by declaring the man innocent and placing all of the blame on the 'damn pink monkey'.

After the trial, Mr. Smith was asked of what he intended to do, now that the trial was over. "I'm going to Disneyland," began Mr. Smith. "And then I'm going to burn it all down."