The Insanity Defense [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

View Full Version : The Insanity Defense

its

11-07-2002, 11:53 AM

Do you think the insanity defense should be legally abolished? Why/Why not?
Please indicate whether you are a DA/Probation Officer/Defense Attorney/Judge/Officer etc.
Thanks!its

Mike Tx

11-07-2002, 03:09 PM

No I don't. I'm just a person.

Jules

11-07-2002, 03:33 PM

I'll surely get bashed for this, but I opposed the insanity defense for murder. Any person in their RIGHT mind is not going to kill another unless it's self defense. A sane person doesn't kill people. A killer therefore is obviously somewhat insane to start with.

To use that for a defense, IMHO, is nuts. It goes back to not taking responsibility for ones own actions. "My dad beat me, raped me, locked me in the closet, that's why I killed an innocent, blame it on my past, my dad made me this way."

BULL CRAP.

I remember a few beatings I got, one with a rubber hose on my bare bottom. My mother was a drunk pill popper who loved to use the belt, wooden spoon or anything else she could get her hands on. I haven't killed anyone yet. If I did, I would have to take my punishment. The insanity defense has been grossly abused. If you kill, you should not have the right to live, or any rights for that matter.

I'm just a person.

Bill R

11-07-2002, 03:52 PM

Do you think the insanity defense should be legally abolished?

Depends on the crime. If the offense is for running down the street naked and screaming obscenities, sure, I'll buy off on insanity. If it's for murder, no way.

I'm just a person.

OfcMikey

11-07-2002, 04:10 PM

It got me off. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :p

Jules

11-07-2002, 04:18 PM

Hey Twit (how come you dropped it), EVERYTHING gets you off! :p :D

OfcMikey

11-07-2002, 04:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
Hey Twit (how come you dropped it), EVERYTHING gets you off! :p :D <hr /></blockquote>Yup, the thread was going fine and then Jules jumps in, now it's about sex......

You are sick, sick, sick.... I like that in a person. :D

Jules

11-07-2002, 04:34 PM

Let's be politically correct, Shall We?

I'm INSANE, INSANE, INSANE!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

nickg

11-07-2002, 04:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
Let's be politically correct, Shall We?

I'm INSANE, INSANE, INSANE!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>no no no...the PC term is "synapse challenged" :D

Delta_V

11-07-2002, 05:24 PM

I don't think it should be abolished.

VERY few defendants are successful in using the insanity defense to get off. There is a statistic in my old Criminal Law book that says:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> ...only about 2 percent of defendants charged with serious crimes use the insanity plea. The success rate among defendants using the insanity plea is not high when medical doctors differ as to the sanity of the defendant. Terrible and gross crimes by a defendant are not likely to cause a jury to make a finding of not guilty because of insanity... <hr /></blockquote>That being said, if a defendant does get found not guilty by reason of insanity, they can be institutionalized indefinitely. Also, in many states a jury can find a defendant guilty but mentally ill. They can then confine the defendant to a mental hospital until he is cured, then he will serve out the rest of his sentence in prison.

There are some people who are genuinely mentally ill and commit crimes because of their mental disease or defect. Someone who commits a crime because he is really a bipolar schitzophrenic is different from someone who says they did it because daddy abused them when they were three. The truly mentally ill don't necessarily belong in prison. According to the Supreme Court, if a person's mental illness prevents a defendant from forming mens rea, a conviction cannot be obtained for that offense. That is even true in the three states that have already abolished the insanity defense.

The defense that I have a problem with in many cases is the diminished capacity defense. Some examples of attempts to use this defense are saying that TV, PMS, eating too much sugar, or having an extra Y chromasome caused the defendant to commit their actions (all of these have actually been tried). Although none of those defenses worked, I don't see many diminished capacity defenses that are plausable.

[ 11-07-2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: PatrickM98 ]

OfcMikey

11-07-2002, 05:43 PM

In Az, we have the guilty, but insane clause.
So these "insane" people don't just walk after someone decides they are better.

Whether insane or not, no one should walk on a murder charge. :cool:

Oregon Mike

11-07-2002, 05:45 PM

I have more respect for psychologists than other so-called scientists, so if an expert says Joey the Maggot is insane, I'll believe him. What I don't understand is the idea that that absolves Joey of the crime. I don't care if he did it because of pure evil, or legitimate insanity, he's a threat to society. If he needs help, give it to him, but either way he should never again be a free man.

Mike

Bill R

11-07-2002, 06:30 PM

I prefer the "He ****ed me off and needed killin'" defense. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

SpecOpsWarrior

11-07-2002, 06:49 PM

Absolutely not.

If a person is truly incapable of determining right from wrong (McNaughton Test), how can society apply the same legal standard to them, as it would to someone who is sane?

Jules

11-07-2002, 07:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I have more respect for psychologists than other so-called scientists, so if an expert says Joey the Maggot is insane, I'll believe him. What I don't understand is the idea that that absolves Joey of the crime. I don't care if he did it because of pure evil, or legitimate insanity, he's a threat to society. If he needs help, give it to him, but either way he should never again be a free man. <hr /></blockquote>I agree, Mike, if a person is truly insane to the point of killing another human being he has become "animal" and will kill again. I don't care how much "therapy" he gets, the killer will not change. The taste is for the thrill and for blood.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If a person is truly incapable of determining right from wrong (McNaughton Test), how can society apply the same legal standard to them, as it would to someone who is sane? <hr /></blockquote>I don't want that person walking the streets. This is a tough issue. Someone who is truly insane should not be allowed in society if that person is a killer. Should he be executed? Should I pay for that insane person to live until he's 95 years old? Will he EVER be rehabilatated? NO!

I hate to put this analogy forth, but if my dog bites my kid in the face, the dog dies, period.

The dog is insane for biting my kid and will continue to bite. So he dies.

SpecOpsWarrior

11-07-2002, 08:08 PM

"I don't want that person walking the streets. This is a tough issue. Someone who is truly insane should not be allowed in society if that person is a killer."

I didn't say I wanted that person walking the streets, or allowed out in society either.

"Should I pay for that insane person to live until he's 95 years old?"

If the courts dont give him the death penalty, then yes, you should pay for it! What shoudl society do, execute people because we dont want to spend the money to house them?

"Will he EVER be rehabilatated? NO!"

We cant make the assumption that everyone who exercises the insanity defense is beyond rehabilitation.

"I hate to put this analogy forth, but if my dog bites my kid in the face, the dog dies, period. The dog is insane for biting my kid and will continue to bite. So he dies.
"

Sorry, but I'm not even going to respond to that analogy.

Delta_V

11-07-2002, 08:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
I don't care how much "therapy" he gets, the killer will not change. The taste is for the thrill and for blood.<hr /></blockquote>Unless you are a psychiatrist who has analyzed every defendant institutionalized for being criminally insane, you have no basis to make such a statement. If you truly believe it, I would like to see what formal research you have read or conducted that proves that the mentally ill cannot be rehabilitated. I'll save you the trouble and tell you that no such research exists. It is a FACT that many mental diseases can be controlled or cured with psychotherapy and drug therapy. Many people who are criminally insane do not get the psychiatric treatment that they need until after they have committed their crimes because they do not come from a socioeconomic strata of society that lends itself to the availability of multitudes of healthcare professionals. You're saying that all mentally ill people who commit crimes are sociopaths, that's not always the case either. If someone really has a mental illness, they are not in control of their actions, nor do they understand right from wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
Should I pay for that insane person to live until he's 95 years old? <hr /></blockquote>It costs more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life. Considering all the appeals that a death row inmate goes through, pluss the fact that they average close to 20 years on death row, it ends up costing the taxpayers more to execute them. Economics still doesn't justify anything when it comes to the criminal justice process. We should do what's right, not what's cheapest.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
The dog is insane for biting my kid and will continue to bite. So he dies.<hr /></blockquote>Not if the kid stuck his fingers in the dog's eye. You can't ask the dog what happened now can you? Comparing a dog to the mentally ill is not only inaccurate, but offensive.

[ 11-07-2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: PatrickM98 ]

Jules

11-07-2002, 08:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It costs more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life. Considering all the appeals that a death row inmate goes through, pluss the fact that they average close to 20 years on death row, it ends up costing the taxpayers more to execute them. <hr /></blockquote>This is due to the lawyers and the courts, no justice here, that drag this crap on for years. The criminals have more rights than the victims. Always have.

As for the dog, my niece was nabbed in the face by a family dog for No reason, we were all sitting there, and the dog was destroyed.

Delta_V

11-07-2002, 09:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
]This is due to the lawyers and the courts, no justice here, that drag this crap on for years. The criminals have more rights than the victims. Always have.<hr /></blockquote>So we should just take them out behind the courthouse after the trial and put two bullets into their head and save the taxpayers lots of money, right?

What about the people who have been wrongly convicted? You know that DOES happen. Do you have any idea how many people on death row (or just in regular parts of prison) have been cleared because of new DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time of their trial? The wrong people have been executed for crimes that they didn't do.

Now I don't side with criminals, but those who are sentenced to death have the right to exhaust any means necessary to get ensure that justice has been done. The death penalty is final...there is no freeing someone on the grounds of new evidence once they have been executed. I know a very small percentage of convicts fall into this group, but it is because of them that we must allow all of these appeals. People who are wrongfully convicted are victims too, only of the legal system instead of a violent crime.

occiferdave

11-07-2002, 09:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
[QUOTE] I don't want that person walking the streets. This is a tough issue. Someone who is truly insane should not be allowed in society if that person is a killer. Should he be executed? Should I pay for that insane person to live until he's 95 years old? Will he EVER be rehabilatated? NO!
<hr /></blockquote>Usually when an Insane person kills, and that person is proven insane, he is usually committed to a mental hospital. Not walking the streets.

[ 11-07-2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

Jules

11-07-2002, 09:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Usually when an Insane person kills, and that person is proven insane, he is usually committed to a mental hospital. Not walking the streets. <hr /></blockquote>Is the taking of someone's life, anyone's life, SANE? Murder I'm talking about, Not execution.

OKAY, you say...is execution right?

All I'm saying is that if one man takes another's life, why should he live, insane or not. The murdered person is no longer here, the killer is allowed to live on for years.

Yes, there have been a few cases where the wrong person has been put on death row, even in Illinois our past Governor was considering EVERY case, which put the families of the victims through hell...again.

We go right back to lawyers and courts, OJ walked and he wasn't alone.

occiferdave

11-07-2002, 09:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
All I'm saying is that if one man takes another's life, why should he live, insane or not.<hr /></blockquote>"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - Gandhi

[ 11-07-2002, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

Delta_V

11-07-2002, 09:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jules:
Is the taking of someone's life, anyone's life, SANE?<hr /></blockquote>You're looking at this from a philisophical point, not a legal one.

Just because someone commits murder does not mean that they are insane. Most states use the ALI's test to determine insanity as it relates to criminal culpability. This basically says that if because of mental disease or defect, a person cannot understand the criminality of their actions, they are legally insane and therefore cannot develop the specific intent required to commit the crime.

An armed robber shooting and killing a clerk at a convenience store isn't insane just because he committed murder. You have to look at the legal definition of insanity, which he obviously would not meet. In contrast, if a patient in a mental hospital killed another patient because he believes that the victim was the devil, that would be a prime example of someone with a defense of insanity.

It's true that someone has to have some major issues to take the life of another human being, but that doesn't mean that they have a mental illness.

[ 11-07-2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: PatrickM98 ]

Jules

11-08-2002, 05:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> In contrast, if a patient in a mental hospital killed another patient because he believes that the victim was the devil, that would be a prime example of someone with a defense of insanity.
<hr /></blockquote>I'll concede to that.

Oregon Mike

11-09-2002, 12:56 AM

Patrick, can you name a single person that has been executed in the U.S. and then found to be innocent? I'm not talking about Salem witch trials, I mean in the last 50 years. People on death row get exhonorated (sp) occasionally, but that's what the appeals process is for.

I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, but it's innacurate to say that we've executed innocent people.

Mike

Delta_V

11-09-2002, 10:08 PM

<a href="http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm" target="_blank">http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm</a>

There are some examples of over 20 people who have been executed where serious doubt about their guilt exists.

Also, over 100 people have been freed from death row as a result of new evidence since the death penalty was reinstituted by the USSC. Forty-seven have been released in the past ten years alone as the result of DNA evidence.

What about before DNA evidence existed? Do you HONESTLY believe that people weren't wrongly convicted and executed before the proliferation of DNA evidence? What would happen to these 47 people had DNA evidence not been available?