Talk:Twinkie defense

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twinkie defense article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 12 months

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Twinkie defense is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

"although the latter concept has yet to gain complete acceptance in the U.S. legal community." is hilarious. 67.174.91.20 07:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No Mention of Diabetes in Support of the Twinkie Defense

I find it odd there is no mention of diabetes in this article, considering the widespread epidemic of diabetes in the modern century, and the prevalence of high sugary soft drinks, candies, candy bars, and other junk foods (such as twinkies) in the modern diet. Many people who have become diabetic from this modern diet, do not know it... and even if they do, they unable to quit their addictions to this highly toxic food.

In a layman's term nutshell, diabetes works like this; your brain does not have any fat or food stores in it, and so is highly affected by the amount of glucose in your blood. When you eat something excessively sugary, or a food with a high glycemic index, your blood sugar spikes. High blood sugar levels is damaging to the bodies cells, so your pancreas stops releasing blood sugar from your stored fats. Your pancreas releases insulin, telling your body's cells to fix the problem, and take up more sugar. You feel energized on a sugar high, until the glucose in your blood stream runs out, and then you crash... it takes quite a while for the pancreas to respond and start releasing stored energy again... the "sugar blues". Your brain is not getting enough glucose, and starved for energy, it becomes hard, if not impossible, to make decisions. Your judgement becomes extremely flawed and impaired.

Being and feeling fatigued is an awful state to be in, so you reach for another convenient sugary soft drink or snack to feel the high again. Which works, but when it wears of again, you crash. So you reach again for more soft drinks or sugary foods. And the cycle loops in a vicious cycle. Eventually your cells become so insulin resistance, you are diabetic. It doesn't take long.... binging for a couple of months on soft drinks as a teenager will do it.

If you are diabetic, and you do not know it... while you are on a sugar low, your judgement and ability to function properly is drastically reduced and impaired. Simple decisions become difficult. Often your decisions are flawed. You feel tired, fatigued, and can not concentrate.

One could argue that if someone was on a sugar low, and made very flawed decisions which lead to injury or a crime, that they were responsible because they drank or ate something which lead to that state or condition of impairment... similar to a drug user using drugs.

The counter argument would be, that would be true if there were warning labels on these fake foods... that they impair judgment. Obviously they are not, and the food industry needs to be held accountable for selling toxic fake foods with a high profit margin at the expense of the public's sanity, cognitive function, and health.

If you knew drugs or high amounts of sugar impaired your ability to function, and you did them anyway, you would be responsible. However, there would be mitigating circumstances, such as your inability to quit... as drugs and sugar are highly addictive on their chemical effect on their brain.

Other diseases, and conditions, obviously, impair judgement and brain function. The ancient roman legal system, upon which modern law is founded, makes an unjust assumption that the human brain is some how independent and apart from the body, and always functioning at a near optimal capability... and so every individual must be held to the highest moral standard for the accuracy of their judgements, at every moment... which is just total hogwash. The truth of the matter is the brain, is very affected, sensitive, and dependent upon the current environment and state of the human body in which it resides. A body poisoned by toxic foods, infections, poisons, failing health conditions, and so on, is going to highly affect ones ability to think properly, straight, or even anywhere near optimal levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism tag

The article bears a {{neologism}} tag, so I will address the question of adequate sources that discuss and define the term rather than merely mention it, especially since there is so much myth associated. There is no question that the term is in usage. Two newspaper articles mentioned it one week before I initiated this thread.[1][2] As for sources discussing the case in detail, a brief search yielded chronologically:

I'm not going to make any immediate unilateral decision, but I think there is sufficient evidence of usage and adequate sources to remove the tag. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to remove it. Anyone could still take this to AfD if in doubt, but I don't think they'd get very far. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty

I found the opening to be really snotty. The writer disparages the term Twinkie Defense as if to say those who coined the term have no point in their apparent contention the defense is a load of horsecrap and all the more contemptible for it having worked. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:FDDE:5369:4877:767A (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

I'm concerned the first sentence in the lead is unnecessarily complicated and hard for a lay-reader to comprehend. Thoughts? It currently reads: ""Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense as commonly understood; it is perhaps also a sardonic label in reference to a secondary aspect of an actual legal defense, among the better informed, concerning the prospect of conflation in the minds of some future jury between a bad, sugary diet as evidence of declining psychological function and a sugar rush as actively exculpatory (due to the more of the same cognitive foibles that so quickly lead the common public to misunderstand the issue in the first place)." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]