Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Time after time, in the news there is a story of murder and a trial, and the insanity plea being used for a person's competence to stand trial.
I look at this issue several ways, and for me it all leads back to charging the person for the crime committed, period. For instance, if someone commits murder in a death penalty state and is found guilty without regards to using mental illness in any argument, then that person should be on death row.
A crime is a crime, and I don't care about the why when innocent people are affected by crime. Even if someone is extremely bi-polar and that person was forced to be put on the stand, so be it. To me it's more scary trying to protect someone with mental illness giving that person even a shred of a chance being put back onto the streets. A crime committed should be treated equal regardless of the perpetrator.
Do you feel the same, or am I just being insensitive?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
This is why I dropped out of graduate school before doing my theses, after completing the coursework with a 4.0 average. I was being required to counsel the mentally ill homeless (Sacramento, CA) and read a book by the late Dr. Thomas Szasz called "The Myth of Mental Illness" which discussed the power of Psychology in the courtroom.
Mental competence judgments go toward determining intent and nature of punishment.
Which is my point (which I wasn't clear enough about).
It shouldn't be used as such, if at all. Someone stabbed to death by person X deemed mentally stable and person Y deemed mentally ill should have absolutely no different outcome to the perpetrator. The nature of the punishment should be identical.
The nature of punishment is seldom identical, mental illness notwithstanding. It's why we have judges hand down sentencing, and determining the appropriate sentence for the individual situation , there are no one size fits all sentences. Intent is taken into consideration.
The nature of punishment is seldom identical, mental illness notwithstanding. It's why we have judges hand down sentencing, and determining the appropriate sentence for the individual situation , there are no one size fits all sentences. Intent is taken into consideration.
I do understand that part of the legal system. But I feel sentencing can be jaded once attorneys bring in an insanity plea into the equation due to mental illness. It can taint a jury's perspective with potential sorrow, and can lead the process away from the actual issue at hand.
It's not an excuse, it's a reason. The criteria for not guilty by reason of insanity is extremely stringent and hard to meet. No matter how "bipolar" a person may be, they can only use that defense if it can be proven they did not know the difference between right and and wrong at that moment, which again is a standard very hard to meet and thus the defense is not used nearly as much as you seem to think.
I think people are more likely to get back to the real world from prison than an asylum, there is parole in prison but not in the latter.
Time after time, in the news there is a story of murder and a trial, and the insanity plea being used for a person's competence to stand trial.
I look at this issue several ways, and for me it all leads back to charging the person for the crime committed, period. For instance, if someone commits murder in a death penalty state and is found guilty without regards to using mental illness in any argument, then that person should be on death row.
A crime is a crime, and I don't care about the why when innocent people are affected by crime. Even if someone is extremely bi-polar and that person was forced to be put on the stand, so be it. To me it's more scary trying to protect someone with mental illness giving that person even a shred of a chance being put back onto the streets. A crime committed should be treated equal regardless of the perpetrator.
Do you feel the same, or am I just being insensitive?
It succeeds rarely enough that it makes the news when it does.
If you don't like it, stop watching the news, or move to a country somewhat less civilized that hasn't actually figured out yet that punishing the insane serves no justice because the insane can't understand punishment.
In the U.S., the Eighth Amendment prevents the execution of those incompetent to understand it, deeming it "cruel and unusual punishment." As the Eighth Amendment was ratified in 1791, and the Supreme Court has stayed executions of the insane as late as this past December with Scott Panetti, I'd say that you are behind the times. We just don't do that here. It's savage.
Last edited by JasperJade; 11-19-2015 at 08:27 AM..
Take off your hard hats. There is insanity among us.
I do not justify what happens here-within, but I do know that some of us don't get the entire pkg. dealt to us at birth...genetics.
So for all of you who want to hang everyone who is without that ability, I say feel compassion.
I would never kill another living thing.
Open your minds, fellow humans. Death is absolute. And sometimes a handful of us are born with brain issues. Until science figures it out, quit killing us.
edit: I know responding to this topic opens up a whirl wind. OK.
Let's talk about killing other living things.
All religions I have studied, take life very seriously.
Who are we to judge?
How many living beings have been on Death Row to later be found innocent through DNA?
Personally, I could never watch another living being be murdered...yes, I said murdered...we have proclaimed through law that it is just fine to kill another being.
To watch the execution of another living thing, I find in my heart, you are just as evil as the person who you think committed the crime...you relish death...but hide behind the words...'seek justice'
Justify would be the next word used...justice...'I want Justice, now I can sleep'
BS.
I 'saw' (later understanding) death of a 4 yr. old child when I was just 26.. I did not want his killer to pay with his life. Instead, pay with life...when he got out, (20 years later) he had no life.
Prosecutors are looking to better a career move, not interested in whether the person is actually innocent and just accused through police.
Prosecutors love that they can manipulate a people so frightened, they will just kill anyone...
Think people, think!
Throw away the lock and key on a murderer. But do not witness his death and find glee in it, lest you be as evil as he...
Last edited by TerraDown; 11-19-2015 at 09:55 AM..
I've read that the insanity defense is only used in about 1% of all criminal cases so it's not really that common. Also, when it is used it's seldom successful. I do think that there's a small amount of cases where the insanity defense is warranted. One that comes to mind right away is Andrea Yates. It's obvious that she was suffering from severe mental illness and while I believe she should be held accountable for her crimes I don't believe she should put in the same category of killers as Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
