The “Twinkie Defense”
Were Twinkies used to defend an assassin?
We’re going to take you all the way back to 1978, Buzzkillers. That may be ancient history for some of you, but it’s still current affairs for your favorite Professor. A murder trial in California during late 1978 became famous for something called the “Twinkie Defense.” According to the myth and urban legend, a man who killed two people in cold blood successfully got his murder charge reduced to manslaughter because his lawyers argued that he suffered diminished capacity due to his excessive consumption of junk food.
This “Twinkie Defense” fanned the flames of people who were arguing that the American criminal justice system was out of control, that criminals could get off based on highly dubious psychiatric or psychological claims. But, for this case anyway, the “Twinkie Defense” was a myth. It never happened. That didn’t stop the press and the chattering classes from becoming outraged. The “Twinkie Defense” has entered the language, referring to any absurd claim to exonerate someone charged of a crime.
The “Twinkie Defense” meme spread more quickly than it might have, because the crime and the trial were famous. Dan White, a former city supervisor in San Francisco shot and killed mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk (who was one of the first openly gay elected politicians in the country).
During the trial, White’s defense team argued that he had been suffering for a long time from depression that had gone untreated. The effects of the depression diminished his capacity to determine right from wrong. Therefore, according to White’s defense team, he was incapable of the premeditation required for the charge of first degree murder. As evidence of his worsening depression, White’s defense team argued, among other things, that he abandoned his normally healthy diet, and stopped caring about his appearance and clothes. Doctors testified that these were symptoms and indicators of his depression.
Neither the defense team nor the doctors claimed that Twinkies or other junk food caused his depression and his diminished responsibility. The poor diet was one of many pieces of evidence that Dan White had become clinically depressed. It was the depression, the defense team argued, that led to his diminished responsibility, not the Twinkies.
White’s charge was reduced to voluntary manslaughter. On May 21, 1979, he was found guilty and sentenced seven years in prison, but the subtleties of his defense were overlooked by much of the press and the public. It was all too easy to leap to a “Twinkie Defense” conclusion. Reaction in San Francisco was sharp. Riots broke out that night and there was a great deal of violence across the city.
It’s not our place to comment on the validity of any particular verdict or sentencing. But, like many myths and misunderstandings, the use of the phrase “Twinkie Defense” in reference to this trial (and ever since) is historical and possibly damaging to understanding the legal system. Read carefully before you react, Buzzkillers.
