Replies

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on FR. :-)

If you take a look here, you will essentially find out that if the perpetrator knew the act was wrong and could conform his behavior to the rules of society, then, regardless of any existing mental illness, defect, or disease, whether permanent or temporary, the perpetrator is guilty.

In Mr. Loughner's case, his own actions before and after the shootings demonstrate that he knew he shouldn't have done what he did, and there was probably not a sufficiently-effective state of delusion to excuse his behavior.

All that being said, I think the idea that "not guilty by reason of insanity" should be removed from our justice system takes things a bit too far. Yes, for many obviously-guilty defendants, it provides a last ditch effort to escape punishment, but it is rarely effective.

And what about putting the shoe on the other foot? Suppose someone slipped you a dose of scopolamine and PCP, and you subsequently killed someone, either accidentally or on purpose, due solely to the effects of the drugs you were involuntarily given. You would be in a mental state in which you were not responsible for your own actions; would it be fair to incarcerate you for several decades because of the actions of another?

would it be fair to incarcerate you for several decades because of the actions of another?

"because of the actions of another"

I think that answers the question of how a hypothetical case like that should be charged. "another" is guilty. Then we get into what was "another's" intent, did they suggest, what were the circumstances of the murder I was accused of; a self-defense situation, was a robbing a store, etc., etc. I think there are far too many questions with a generalized hypothetical like that to make an argument of the necessity of keeping the insanity defense.

The hypothetical is insanity due to "unwitting" ingestion of the substance. I doubt "unwitting" ingestion of an inebriating substance has ever been an actual case where the insanity defense was used, let alone a frequent scenario.

The typical scenario is undoubtedly like Loughner - act like a crazy moron with a freakish smile, say you're insane.

The more outlandish the murder, the more insane you appear.

Any time someone murders someone the murderer could certainly be considered mentally "not all there".

The insanity defense is based on insanity being a "mental illness". Which brings us to the whole "mental health" field. We have allowed our legal geniuses (geniuses at generating caseload and making money for themselves by allowed society to turn into a cesspool of immorality) to say that johnny was "sick", that's why he committed the murder. As if we're supposed to believe it's like johnny had a cold, or polio, or some physical ailment. Being sick is not the fault of the person who's sick. If we use that logic, every murderer was certainly "not right in the head" the day they committed the murder. Look at the young Jewish boy in NY that was recently murdered and dismembered. Is his murderer the model of a civic hero ? Certainly not, if he committed this crime, he is a deranged individual. NEVERTHELESS, allowing him to claim that he is "sick" would allow him to get let off easy on punishment. This sends a signal - TO EVERY WACKO PERSON OUT THERE - that "the system" will allow you to claim you're sick, act wacky enough, and then basically get off.

I have a much better hypothetical. A man who has been in a mental institution for 15 years and wound up there because of a history of drug use and violence which started after discharge from the military where he was subject to combat stress. He is institutionalized, put on medication, and makes tremendous strides in being able to function normally. As long as he stays on his meds, he can control his anger. He feels better, wants to get to a life on the outside, keeps working at it and finally is allowed to move into independent, but monitored housing. He has to stay on his meds and completely refrain from any and all drugs and alcohol, which is does remarkably well at. He even gets married. He's a model citizen, all his neighbors think he is a great guy. Now say his paperwork is mixed up and he does not get his meds, gets stressed, goes to a bar, gets in a fight and kills someone, witnessed by a crowd of people and is arrested at the scene. In that case, I would think there were mitigating circumstances to his actions, and the death penalty would be excessive. That's obviously a case where the institution, housing and prison are used in some combination. The man has served his country and has been for decades making a Herculean effort to be a good citizen, and, most key, he went off his meds because of the paperwork mixup.

On the other hand, we have cases like Jared's . When a family is dysfunctional, it is the family's responsibility. Parents have an obligation to keep their children off drugs until they reach the age of majority, at which point the children, now adults, have the responsibility themselves. Being a messed up kid is the kid's fault once they turn 18. Thats' what we can't get over - everybody's got a hard luck story. Mama didn't love me, etc. In truth, we have turned our back on corporal punishment for children; pointing to cases of abuse, we threw the baby out with the bathwater, and now society views all corporal punishment as abuse. Instead of teaching children the truth, we allow them to believe a lie, that they can do whatever they want with no serious consequences, just talk. Which engenders not only disrespect, but disregard for authority, and leads to more senseless violence perpetrated on innocents, as disrespectful young generations become adults.

There is no EXCUSE for murder. One does not slip and fall and accidentally abuct, murder and dismember a person. It is no accident. There is no excuse. And the righteous penalty for being duly convicted of such a crime is death. This is how the civil government serves the people. If it protects criminals and murderers, it unjustly subjects good people to them.

The death penalty, since it is irrevocable, is simply used righteously only in cases where the evidence is very, very clear, very certain, there is enough evidence, i.e., not just less than certain circumstantial evidence, but very clear, irrefutable evidence. Being caught red-handed is one of those situations, i.e., caught at the scene, caught on video right before the abduction and the police finding the body in your refrigerator, etc.

If the evidence is less certain than that, prison would be the righteous sentence, as if it ever is proved wrong, the falsely accused at least can be released.

And if the evidence is logically weak enough that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the acts happened as the prosecution charges or whether the accused was the perpetrator or perhaps someone else could have been, then, of course, even though the person may look guilty, they would be acquitted by a jury.