|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Insanity Defense
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
James Holmes (movie theatre massacre) was convicted of murder yesterday, in spite of the fact that he had been mentally ill since his first suicide attempt at age 11. Two psychiatrists testified that he had schizophrenia, and his own writings and interaction with his school had shown a sharp deterioration in the weeks before the murders. One college psychologist had notified campus police that he had talked about murder and seemed dangerous.
Holmes pled not guilty by reason of insanity but the jury decided he was not insane because "he knew right from wrong." Is this a good definition of sanity? They also thought all his careful planning proved that he was sane. Was that proof of sanity? Can someone plan a murder, know that it is against the law, and still be insane if they believe that it's important to commit the murder for some irrational reason? In Holmes case, he thought he needed to "send a message that there was no message."
If jury members don't want to allow the insanity defense even in cases of documented mental illness before the crime, then what exactly does it mean and what use is it?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The same thing happened in England with the Yorkshire Ripper. Again, psychiatrists testified that he was schizophrenic, but the judge was having none of it, and declared that he was 'bad not mad', or words to that effect.
The irony was that Sutcliffe was therefore committed to prison, but proved very difficult to manage for prison staff, and eventually was moved to Broadmoor, where (of course) mentally ill prisoners are housed (and in fact, treated).
I suppose many people think that an insanity plea is 'getting away with it', and therefore often
say, 'well, he could plan it' or 'he can tell right from wrong', therefore not insane.
But then insanity is very difficult to define, and there are different approaches to it. But popular opinion seems to see people who can be rational at times, as inevitably sane.
Well, I had clients who were full of bizarre fantasies, but could plan a trip to London, navigate all the transport, get back home OK, and so on. Rational in one sense, but also out of it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course, I'm neither a lawyer nor a psychiatrist. But, ISTM that "insanity" covers a range of variations in mental stability. I don't see how anyone suffering a diagnosable mental health issue is therefore automatically given a free pass in relation to legal guilt for his/her actions. It must surely be the responsibility of the jury to determine whether a not someone is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and mental health issues may form part of the doubt over guilt. The question isn't "sane or insane?", the question is "sane enough to bear responsibility for his actions?"
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Legal definitions of insanity tend to specify that the person doesn't know the nature and quality of the act. Most recently, in the UK, a man was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity after decapitating a woman because he believed her to be a demonic adolf hitler.
The legal definitions are very tight. MOre usually in the UK someone with a severe mental illness directly contributing to their criminal behaviour, might plead not guilty of murder by reason of diminished responsibility - and then be found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter.
It has more effec ton sentencing than conviction, in that people may recieve a treatment order rather than imprisonment.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
I must declare an interest. I was diagnosed schizophrenic at the age of 33. I had, of course, been hearing 'voices' long before then, but hit a crisis at this age. The thing is, mad people take their own mental experience to be normal, since they have no benchmark to compare it with, other than their own distorted subjective experiences. It is only through discussion and debate that we can estimate a normal way of being. And only through discussion and debate that 'normal' people get to gauge the mentality of the mad. I think we need a movement something akin to gay pride, where we mentally ill people can 'come out' in a supportive environment, celebrate the achievements of the mentally ill, and get society to recognise that mad is not necessarily bad, just different.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
The term "sane" (or "insane") is inexact. To be honest, there are very few times when murdering another human being can be called the act of a "sane" person. Willingly taking the life of another person who does not threaten your own life requires some degree of mental illness.
The test, then, is as Alan stated. It is not whether, on the absolute scale, a person is sane or insane, but whether the person was aware that what he was doing was legally wrong. If you deliberately murder people knowing that you are killing them and that it is against the law, then you are guilty in law. The fact that you don't care that you are guilty, that you don't care that you are breaking the law, that you don't care that you are killing people, does not lessen the punishment.
The true insanity defense is for those people who are so delusional that they truly do not understand what they are doing. For example, a person hallucinates that he is surrounded by giant insects and thinks that he is grabbing pesticide to kill the bugs: he is not guilty by reason of insanity if it turns out that the "giant insects" are actually people and the "pesticide" a gun. That person truly does not know what he is actually doing and so should not be punished as if he did.
In the Holmes case, the jury found that he knew what he was doing. As such, his motives (or lack of motives) for doing it do not qualify for the insanity defense; that he didn't care what he was doing didn't change the fact that he knew what he was doing.
[ 17. July 2015, 12:40: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A consequence of jury trial which incidentally I support, is that one has to accept that the jury may not believe all the evidence presented to them. That has to include not just the ordinary witnesses attesting as to what happened, but also the expert witnesses.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The legal definitions are very tight. MOre usually in the UK someone with a severe mental illness directly contributing to their criminal behaviour, might plead not guilty of murder by reason of diminished responsibility - and then be found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter.
This "diminished responsibility" or "diminished capacity," is sometimes used in America, too, and Holmes's attorney tried to use it, but apparently it was not considered. I think it would make sense in this case, where he seemed to know he was breaking the law but his illness was making it hard for him to make rational decisions.
I think it also satisfies the jury's desire to exact punishment for horrific crimes, while still giving the defendant some consideration for his special circumstances.
Too many people see the insanity plea as "getting away with it," although the criminal usually spends more time locked up under an insanity conviction than murder. Prisons have to let the criminal go after a set number of years but a lock down psychiatric hospital can keep him forever. Of course, in Holmes's case I expect he will get the death penalty.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think it's perfectly right to say that a person may be mentally ill but may nonetheless be able to make responsible decisions about some things at some times. To say otherwise would be to say that any person with a mental illness must give up all decision making capacity, and could have no control over their own life or property. And if you accept that in principle it is possible for a mentally ill person to, for example, conclude a valid contract for the purchase of a car, or write a valid will, then you have to accept that in principle a mentally ill person might be able to inform the criminal intent necessary to commit a crime.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
He killed a lot of people. The idea he was deranged is politically untenable. They want pay him back with death. And they will. The court has made its legal diagnosis.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
You don't know that. And even if you are right in this particular case, that doesn't invalidate the principle that someone who is mentally ill might still be responsible for some of their actions- including crimes.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All terribly wise.
Hedgehog.
PV.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Hedgehog wrote:
The true insanity defense is for those people who are so delusional that they truly do not understand what they are doing. For example, a person hallucinates that he is surrounded by giant insects and thinks that he is grabbing pesticide to kill the bugs: he is not guilty by reason of insanity if it turns out that the "giant insects" are actually people and the "pesticide" a gun. That person truly does not know what he is actually doing and so should not be punished as if he did.
In the Holmes case, the jury found that he knew what he was doing. As such, his motives (or lack of motives) for doing it do not qualify for the insanity defense; that he didn't care what he was doing didn't change the fact that he knew what he was doing.
I find this useful. It brings to mind the haunting images of Breivick on TV, who gave the appearance of the trial being rather amusing. So this is very chilling. Yet at the same time, he probably understands reality, thus, he doesn't think people are giant insects. He was declared sane.
I suppose the decision as what is mad and what is bad is political in a sense.
I recall sitting with clients who struck me as very cold, or very absent, or very cruel, and I had the subjective thought, I am surrounded by madness, or X is trying to drive me mad, but that would be difficult to take to a legal setting.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Albertus
And if you accept that in principle it is possible for a mentally ill person to, for example, conclude a valid contract for the purchase of a car, or write a valid will, then you have to accept that in principle a mentally ill person might be able to inform the criminal intent necessary to commit a crime.
Not only that. If it were not possible for any mentally ill person to be morally responsible for their actions, a mentally ill person could never be given a job which involved the exercise of moral responsibility. That would be a very big step since at the moment many people diagnosed with mental illness perform such jobs to the required standards. Several are present as members here.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
He killed a lot of people. The idea he was deranged is politically untenable. They want pay him back with death. And they will. The court has made its legal diagnosis.
His attorneys offered a straight guilty plea if they took the death penalty off the table. No deal. As defense attorneys around here like to say, it's the 18th. The 18th Judicial District, where this was prosecuted, is the "law and order" district in this state. The vast majority of all of the death penalty cases brought in this state happen in the 18th (although we only have three prisoners on death row and have only executed one person since 1976- three and one too many in my book, but that's another matter). They are also the strictest about plea negotiations for lesser offenses- standard first DUI pleas in every other part of the metro area seem very generous when you find yourself in the 18th. There is also a lot of speculation that the DA may be thinking about running for congress when he is term limited out, and that getting a death penalty conviction in this case will give him some cred. Which is part of the cost of elected District Attorneys- sometimes you get a real lawyer who just loves prosecuting, and sometimes you get someone trying to springboard his or her way to higher office.
Read that all in the context of someone who works around a lot of defense attorneys and who has several defense attorney friends on Facebook who have professional grudges against the 18th DA's office.
In this state, there are two standards for insanity. First, quote:
A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to the act is not accountable.
Second, quote:
A person who suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged is not accountable.
And as stated above, it can come down to a battle of experts. Each side will qualify a very smart person as an expert, have them describe the tests for legal insanity, describe their observations, and then give an opinion on the defendant. So you can have one very smart person saying the person is not insane, another very smart person saying that the person is insane, and it is up to the jury to decide who they trust. (I am good friends with a woman who does this for a living- when I say very smart person, I mean very smart person.)
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
OK. This comment that follows isn't about Holmes. I don't know what happened in his brain that led to this slaughter. I'm not remotely qualified to speculate.
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
The term "sane" (or "insane") is inexact. To be honest, there are very few times when murdering another human being can be called the act of a "sane" person. Willingly taking the life of another person who does not threaten your own life requires some degree of mental illness.
I really hate this argument because it's circular and it works to the detriment of the millions of people who are mentally ill and wouldn't hurt anyone. Apparently sane, rational people do awful things all the time. Once you decide to group all those people in the category of "mentally ill" it plays into society's prejudices in all sorts of ways. People with depression and anxiety are suddenly seen as dangerous. People with schizophrenia have it a hundred times worse. No matter how many times organisations like Time To Change try to get out the message that mental illness is very common and very rarely causes crime, what people see is crazy people killing others. That's not going to change if people's automatic response to violence or evil is "Oh, must be caused be mental illness." And that's even before we get into the bias around race and gender and violence.
A murderous impulse is something that is very common in humans. Whole societies can be caught up in violence and killing with the right input from their leaders and the right peer pressure. It may be uncomfortable to think about that. You may struggle to get your brain around the urge to kill. That doesn't make it an illness - if we take the basic idea of "normal" as what's common behviour throughout the world and throughout the ages then killing other people is very normal indeed.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I agree with Liopleurodon.
I think there are other objections to Hedgehog's statement as well. Is Hedgehog stating that all military personnel are insane? In war, you may readily be ordered to kill a stranger who is not at that moment threatening your life. If someone is threatening your nephew and the only way you can protect your nephew is to kill, does that make you insane? Is every woman who has an abortion for whatever reason necessarily insane? Does Hedgehog rule out all mercy killings under all circumstances?
It's easy and reassuring to say:
1. Only insane people kill.
2. I'm not insane.
3. Therefore I will never kill anyone.
4. Thus I may feel secure and superior.
Real life is more complex.
By the way, the insanity defense could also be used for some other kinds of crimes such as arson or kidnapping.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not that I at all disagree with The Might Sea creature, she is wise here as she often is.
But I think people are misreading Hedgehog.
First, he said murder. Murder, by definition, precludes war, self-defence and the like.
Second, my position is somewhere between TMSC and the shortstop. In that,
mental illness =\= dangerous
violence is part of the human psyche
Killing often involves an objectively non-rational component.
This isn't the same as mentally ill, but it is not the same as rational either.
[ 17. July 2015, 17:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Too many people see the insanity plea as "getting away with it," although the criminal usually spends more time locked up under an insanity conviction than murder. Prisons have to let the criminal go after a set number of years but a lock down psychiatric hospital can keep him forever. Of course, in Holmes's case I expect he will get the death penalty.
I used to know a hospital chaplain whose cure of souls included people who would previously have been described as 'criminally insane'. She says that many of them were very bitter at being deemed insane. If they were considered responsible for their actions, then they could go to jail, serve their time and come out. Instead they are sectioned indefinitely with any prospect of 'release' being wholly in the hands of medical experts.
One particularly nasty example would be Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer currently held at Ashworth, who has been on hunger strike for decades. He wants to kill himself but because he is deemed as not responsible for his actions, he is force-fed. About two years ago he appealed to be classed as sane so that he could be transferred to a regular prison and kill himself. He failed.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
And, honestly, I agree with Liopleurodon, too. My comment was phrased incorrectly on several bases. I was trying to get across that the very terms "sane" and "insane" are not subject to clear delineation, in much the same way that the terms "normal" and "abnormal" are not subject to clear delineation.
But I was wrong to refer to "mentally ill" in my comment and I was justly corrected for doing so.
And thank you lilBuddha for pointing out that I meant to limit my comment to murder, although I get HCH's point. My subsequent comment:
quote:
Willingly taking the life of another person who does not threaten your own life requires some degree of mental illness.
was meant to be limited to the murder context, but I didn't actually say that. And I certainly understand HCH's point that that phrase, standing alone, would include some of the other contexts that HCH mentioned. That was not my intention. I meant the phrase to be limited to the murder context.
But Liopleurodon's point stands and I do not dispute it.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I do not know anything about the insanity defence in the various US jurisdictions. In all Australian jurisdictions, as well as in England, NZ, and I think India and Canada as well, the present day test is that laid down in the English case of R v McNaghten. This explanation of the test is that given by Sir Owen Dixon in R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182, when he said:
The next thing which I wish to emphasize is that his state of mind must have been one of disease, disorder or disturbance. Mere excitability of a normal man, passion, even stupidity, obtuseness, lack of self-control, and impulsiveness, are quite different things from what I have attempted to describe as a state of disease or disorder or mental disturbance arising from some infirmity, temporary or of long standing. If that existed it must then have been of such a character as to prevent him from knowing the physical nature of the act he was doing or of knowing that what he was doing was wrong. You will see that I have mentioned two quite different things. One state of mind is that in which he is prevented by mental disorder from knowing the physical nature of the act he is doing; the other is that he was prevented from knowing that what he was doing was wrong.
Sir Owen, as a Justice of the High Court (equivalent to the Supreme Courts of the US and now the UK) was summing up to a jury - an unusual task for any High Court Justice, but his words are still recognised as the best statement of the law. Of course, he was recognised across the common law world as the best legal mind of the 20th century.
Diminished responsibility is a different matter, at least here. In NSW, the test is:
A person who would otherwise be guilty of murder is not to be convicted of murder if:
(a) at the time of the acts or omissions causing the death concerned, the person’s capacity to understand events, or to judge whether the person’s actions were right or wrong, or to control himself or herself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, and
(b) the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter.
As it shows, the test is not as stringent, and the effect is reduce the verdict from guilty of murder to guilty of manslaughter. A successful insanity defence is a complete one, the accused being found not guilty. Of course, such an accused is not simply let out of gaol, the practical result being different from each jurisdiction to another.
I do not have any statistics, but certainly from what you hear there are very few cases here where the insanity of an accused is questioned by the prosecution; in almost every case the medical evidence from the accused and the prosecution will be unanimous.
Finally, there is nothing at all to support the comments made by No Prophet etc - that is all pure conjecture.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Og, thank you for all that good insider information. Can you tell me if Gee D's part b manslaughter was brought up? quote:
(b) the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter.
To me that fits the situation quite well, since most people aren't going to think his psychotic state was bad enough to call it "insanity." He didn't think the people in the theater were giant insects he only thought he was The Joker and The Joker liked to kill people.
As No Prophet says, he killed a lot of people. The jury heard all their stories. It's this desire to determine whether someone is insane or not according to the amount of sympathy for the victims and the number of victims that seems a little off to me. If he had killed his grandmother because he thought she was a witch he would probably be in a hospital right now but his psychosis manifested in a bigger, more complicated and tragic way.
It's also very telling that the prosecution seems so set on a path that will end in the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty in any circumstance but I would think that those in favor of it would save it for crimes where there are no large mitigating circumstances.
I don't think that's saying that anyone with any mental illness is exempt from paying the penalty for his crimes. "Mental illness," itself is so broad a label that it includes things like bulimia, but if someone has been long diagnosed with a severe disease that can impair thinking to the point of false delusions and hallucinations then to not consider that at all seems illogical if not heartless. I live in Ohio where a man who was severely mentally retarded was given the death penalty, to have kept him off death row would not have been saying that people with low IQ's are allowed to commit crimes with impunity. It is something to consider.
I don't think, either, as Alan Cresswell was implying, that by considering this factor in the Holmes decision we would be saying that people with schizophrenia are never going to be held accountable for their actions.
People with this disease, who are on medication are actually less likely to commit crimes than "normal," people. That doesn't change the fact that someone whose disease is not in control and is in the midst of a psychotic episode is going to have a harder time understanding exactly what he's doing and resisting urges and "orders," whether he knows those things are against the law or not. Treating Holmes under law exactly like anyone else for the sake of decreasing stigma for all those with schizophrenia who never commit crimes seems like an unfair sacrifice of his life.
Holmes should have been in a hospital. His deterioration was rapid and obvious, he had failed out of school after doing quite well for years, his girl-friend broke up with him for saying "crazy" things, his college therapist had told the campus police he was dangerous, his answering machine was in the voice of The Joker. Still he remained alone with his disease and had no professional help, because our country refuses to allow involuntary commitment in most cases and because we don't want to spend the money for psychiatric hospitals.
Now everyone is happy and eager to spend the huge amount of money necessary for a death penalty case on this one man.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
... A murderous impulse is something that is very common in humans. Whole societies can be caught up in violence and killing with the right input from their leaders and the right peer pressure. It may be uncomfortable to think about that. You may struggle to get your brain around the urge to kill. That doesn't make it an illness - if we take the basic idea of "normal" as what's common behviour throughout the world and throughout the ages then killing other people is very normal indeed.
There have been many tragic cases of women murdering their children under various circumstances. I remember my boss pointing out that everyone always says, "I don't understand how a mother could kill her child" and her response to that is, "Well, I totally understand how a mother could kill her own child." And she's a good mom with a grown-up son.
People kill each other for trivial reasons while completely sane. Heck, the overwhelming majority of crime is committed by sane people - why would murder be any different?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
Most of the states here use some form of the M'Naughten rule too.
(slight tangent)
What I think is really interesting is that, at least partly because of how arbitrary some of the standards are for who's insane and who's not, some states won't allow the insanity defense at all. Not with a "not guilty" plea, anyway. It's just way too difficult to figure out where to draw the line and there are too many things that go into what people understand about mental illness that they'd rather err on the side of caution. Given what I've seen and experienced, I don't blame them. I have bipolar and OCD tendencies...if you're not familiar with the latter, it can cause some *extremely* disturbing thoughts and urges you would never think that person capable of. Like was mentioned before, some people have knee-jerk reactions when they hear the words "mental illness" or the names of the disorders that can IMO unfairly bias jurors against the defendant. There's just too much room for error.
I wonder if there will be any changes in the uses of the insanity defense as more is learned about mental illness. PTSD for one is still pretty misunderstood.
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
