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.
If we had a more certain way of determining guilt, then I would definitely be more inclined in that direction for some of them. And as I think I mentioned, that's my main objection to the death penalty also, that not everyone who has ever received it, was probably even guilty.
If someone violates the social contract in a harmful enough manner, an extreme enough one, I don't really expect them to change into someone who is fine to put back into the general population.
But then, I am not talking about non violent offenses here. I'm talking about pretty extreme things.
As for the mentally ill being loose on the streets? Well, a friend of a friend, was taken to jail after he destroyed a cop car with a hammer, among other things. He is definitely mentally ill. They had him a few months, and then let him out. He went back to his father's house. He'd been abusive to his father, and causing lots of problems in the neighborhood and in the street by their house. (Public nudity, violence and threats of violence, lots of wild stuff.) So they sent him back to his father's house. A few weeks later, to no one's surprise, he was on a rampage again and wrecking the house and the neighbors called the cops. This time he threatened an officer with a knife. So he's back in jail again.
Everyone is hoping he stays there. His father loves him, but cannot handle him, and this elderly man's life is being ruined, he's being terrorized by his adult son.
At least in America, the mentally ill wind up wandering the streets all the time. Sure, if they do something bad enough, they'll be locked away in a state institution...for a while.
My point is that I view incarceration less as punishment and more as protection to society, and if that is my underlying premise, a person is not less dangerous simply because the REASON for it is mental illness.
I know very well that not all mentally ill people are dangerous, and many might be dangerous to themselves but not to others.
How we handle the mentally ill in this society is atrocious in general. But in terms of your f of a f - that wasn't an insanity case - that was plain old crappy systems in place for everyone.
However, it seems that specificly for insanity cases they are scrutinized a great deal more than the usual criminal case, both before and after sentencing.
Like I said, very rarely is anyone locked up "forever", sane or insane, violent or not. There are parole boards for prisons and other requirements for the mentally ill. It's a simple fact that violent people get out - whether there is ANY attempt at reform is something we should look at. People ACT as though reform isn't needed but that's only if they never get out. Are you willing to lock people up forever if there is ANY chance they'll be violent again? Are you willing to pay for that, both with taxes and with your conscience?
If the mentally ill are not less dangerous because of their illness, does the same apply to the otherwise mentally incompetent due to low intelligence...or to young age?
If your mind is so unplugged from reality that you cannot at the time conceive that you did a wrong act, well - you're not legally guilty.
Wrong. You are legally guilty, the question if if you're legally fit to stand trial. But you will get your day in court and you will go to the "nut house" for your crimes.
A serial killer might have missing cognitive functions when they fell out of a tree and hit their head as a child, but they're still going to "prison" for killing 20 people.
The psychiatrists will study the serial killer, brand him bipolar, schizophrenic, and a psychopath, then the killer will go off to death row or finish his entire life in a nut house.
Being declared insane doesn't allow you to walk away free, it only changes were you'll be incarcerated.
The only time you'll be "not guilty by insanity" would be like immediately killing a man you caught sleeping with your wife. Then it's "not guilty by temporary insanity" because it was in the heat of the moment. And there is no guarantee a judge or jury would see it that way.
Some people seem to think that any component of the criminal justice system which can result in a guilty person going free needs to be 'fixed'. (converse note: most people seem less concerned about the opposite - that in which an innocent person has to serve a sentence for what they did not do)
Well, guess what? That's every component of the criminal justice system.
Sometimes law enforcement breaks the law to get - or manufacture - evidence.
Sometimes prosecutors get it wrong.
Sometimes witnesses lie and are not found out.
Sometimes judges are biased.
Sometimes juries get it wrong.
Sometimes the appeals process does not work properly.
Sometimes parole boards get it wrong.
Sometimes those who have served their sentences re-offend.
So we strive for a balance. We try to implement policies that deter, that prevent, that rehabilitate, without descending into a draconian authoritarian state. As it is, we - the United States - still put a larger percentage of our populace behind prison bars than any country on the planet, so the idea that we're not incarcerating enough people seems rather misguided.
The real question is this:
*Should we be a nation that seeks due process?
*Or should we be a nation that seeks to feel good about itself by making sure that no one 'gets off', regardless of how much due process suffers as a result?
The greater majority of people who commit murder; child abuse, and a few other crimes are mentally insane; however for me that is not a defense, but a greater reason to bring back the death penalty in all states.
I'll go with the venerable M'Naghten's rule: Would the criminal have committed the crime standing next to a policeman? Evasion of the authorities, hiding of evidence, and general secrecy all speak to at least a basic understanding of right and wrong.
Hate to quibble, but you really aren't. Legal guilt has two components - guilty mind, and criminal act. Insanity defense erases the "guilty mind" part of the equation.
(Strict liability crimes apart, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.)
Quote:
the question if if you're legally fit to stand trial
If you cannot stand trial, you cannot be found guilty at trial, and that's the definition of legally guilty.
Quote:
The only time you'll be "not guilty by insanity" would be like immediately killing a man you caught sleeping with your wife. Then it's "not guilty by temporary insanity" because it was in the heat of the moment. And there is no guarantee a judge or jury would see it that way.
The states (not all) that have that defense on the books call it "provocation". It's not a full defense, it merely negates premeditation, when it works - in other words, it lets you argue manslaughter, rather than murder.
The greater majority of people who commit murder; child abuse, and a few other crimes are mentally insane; however for me that is not a defense, but a greater reason to bring back the death penalty in all states.
Then outlaw insanity. There are people who are not able to tell good from bad. There are lawyers who use this in protecting their clients. The base is that the legislature needs to revise tha law every decade or two to incorporate decisions and clarify meanings
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.
