Bobbitt case cuts to quick for students

Many men feel his pain. Many women believe her claims of abuse. Most have followed their story. And everyone seems to have an opinion about the verdict in the Lorena Bobbitt trial. On Friday, she was acquitted by reason of temporary insanity on charges of malicious wounding. Last year, the couple's case made national headlines after Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband John's penis. While surgeons were able to reattach his organ, the feud became a subject of national debate. And attention has zoomed in on the long-awaited trial of Lorena Bobbitt since her estranged husband was found not guilty of marital rape last year. Many University students strongly disagreed with Friday's verdict, saying insanity should not have been considered a factor. "I think she planned it and thought about doing it before," Engineering and Wharton sophomore John Hull said. "But you'd probably have to be insane to do that anyway." Others said John Bobbitt deserved to be compensated for damage. "Some reparations should be made," College freshman Benjamin Fogelman said. "The man's extremity was cut off. You can't do that. It's wrong." "I think she should have been held somewhat accountable," College senior Scott Romeika said. "She deserves something worse than what she got." Crazy or not, some said Lorena Bobbitt should have been found guilty. "I don't know if she was really crazy or not, but I think she should have been found guilty," Nursing freshman Rebecca Cross said. "After all, she chopped off his thing!" Several students worried about the ramifications of the case. "It's also going to set a precedent for a similar situation to happen again," Fogelman said. "It's kind of scary for all men," Romeika said. "I never heard of anything like that happening before. I guess I still feel relatively safe." Some students still agreed with the jury's decision. "I think that [it] was a fair verdict," College sophomore David Hong said. "If what she said was true, than she didn't deserve punishment." Watching the trial had an impact on how Wharton and Engineering junior Amish Mehta perceived Lorena Bobbitt's guilt. "Before the case started, I thought she should have been guilty," Mehta said. "Once I watched the trial, I could justify the verdict. "I think it was justified because of her sincerity," he added. "She convinced the jury that the way she was treated promoted her state of temporary insanity." The case also triggered a debate in some viewers' minds about the validity of the temporary insanity plea. "The use of temporary insanity as a defense needs more clarification." Mehta said. "If people start getting away with things based on temporary insanity, then that could cause a problem." Many students refused to comment on the Bobbitt verdict because they felt that the issue was too "touchy" to even discuss.