Elizabeth Smart, David Mitchell and the "Insanity Defense"

[Hawk one]

TBH, I don't have a problem with the insanity defense as (I understand) it works. It just means you get locked up in a different kind of prison. You know, the padded walls kind. And, as was pointed out, usually for a longer time. So, the problem is...?

The problem is the movies. They make it seem like "insanity plea" is used all the time, that it works, and that it's easy to work the system like this, and that you're out in two shakes. Absolutely none of this is actually true in real life. It's hardly ever used, it's -not- easy to succeed with it, and for those that do "succeed", they tend to be sent to institutions not much - if any - better than prisons, and on average spend twice as long there as they would otherwise be imprisoned anyway.

Not to HansMustermann (as he already knows this, I suspect): Hollywood-style psychiatry and Hollywood-style mental illness. Loathe it. Detest it. And don't let your opinion on "insanity plea" be coloured by it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'd like to point out the wackiness of both Hawk one and myself posting completely serious, rational posts in a thread about insanity.

 

[Aepervius]

It's a question of responsibility. We don't punish people for actions they aren't responsible for, do we? If someone is insane then they are not responsible for their actions.

Even in the US, mentality handicapped and children are tried as adult sometime. So i would contend this is not even true.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Even in the US, mentality handicapped and children are tried as adult sometime. So i would contend this is not even true.

Very well, I'll rephrase: we shouldn't punish people who are not responsible for their actions. But I lack the power to compel others to agree with that, and also it is frequently debatable whether this or that person in this or that case is responsible for their actions or not.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, to be fair to Hollywood, the treat just about everything else like the baby treats a diaper. Computers with huge characters, coming in typewriter speed, and where you just need to type "hack password" to get in. Explosions which come at 5ft per second or so, and you can outrun. Lava flows you can just jump over or walk around the edges, or again outrun, never mind that in reality you'd be cooked by high-speed pyroclastic flows of superheated air and ash (and superheated as in: often over 1000 celsius!) long before you ever see the lava. (Seriously, check out how the explosion of Mt Pelee ignited the nearby city and cooked almost all inhabitants in seconds, without any of them ever seeing lava.) Cars, or even wooden wagons, which instantly explode in a massive explosion upon impact. Bullet hits which send one flying 10 ft backwards and through a window. Etc.

You didn't really expect it to treat psychiatry any better, did you?

 

[Tricky]

If the crime is the result of an illness, what's the rationale behind putting the person in prison after he becomes healthy again? Do we punish people for being sick?

In this case, it would be more like putting a dangerous illness in permanent quarantine lest it harm other people.

ETA: Oops. TM beat me to it.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Being insane or a psychopath does not mean that *ALL* single of his behavior have to be irrational. Only that a subset of some are. That said, I am not a psychiatric doctor, neither do I play one on TV, therefore I can't judge from the few stuff i read whether he looks insane or not.

I fully admit that not being a psychiatrist, and not being familiar with the case past what I've seen in news stories, I can't exactly diagnose the guy with any certainty.

But his insanity does seem awfully convenient, in that the voices in his head always tell him to do things which benefit his vices and which he wants to do.

Also, being mentally ill isn't enough, the person has to be insane to the point they don't know that what they did was wrong. The fact that he kidnapped her at night at knifepoint, chained her up, then disguised her, and intentionally tried to thwart rescue efforts in various ways makes it seem like this guy knew he wasn't supposed to be doing what he was doing.

 

[Mark6]

I agree. I think most disagreement comes because it is usually difficult to determine if someone is "cured". But what if it isn't? Suppose you develop a brain tumor that causes you to become extremely violent, and you kill someone. The tumor is removed, and you feel like your old self. Should you be locked up for life? It seems that this is possible, similar to: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm.

I don't even care if someone is "naturally" a killer. If there was a way to reliably "fix" that and they were willing to take the fix, then they should be let go. On the other hand, I don't care if someone commits crimes because they are "insane", or "don't know right from wrong". If that condition can not be fixed, then they need to be locked up, whether in prison or a medical facility.

Agree.

I think we are only having this discussion because AS OF YET, there is no safe and reliable way to "reprogram" a human brain, except in gross cases like cancer. Once it becomes possible to change a criminal's brain chemistry so he would no longer WANT[1] to commit crimes, with no major side effects, and high reliability -- and I think it will be possible within few decades, -- the entire public attitude toward crime and punishment will undergo a sea change. Once criminals CAN be "cured" (no way proponents would call it "reprogramming"!), they will be quickly seen not as evil men in need of punishment, but as sick individuals in need of cure -- against their own will if necessary, but that's "for their own good," like all dangerous mental patients.

[1] "Want" may not be a right term here. I am thinking more in terms of "incapable of even thinking about commiting murder/rape/whatever"

 

[The Don]

What about those people who are perfectly fine if they're on their meds, but not when they're off them ?

Should these people remain in custody forever, on their meds being perfectly fine and presenting no threat to anyone ?

Or is the risk that they may go off their meds and commit a crime sufficient to continue to detain them ?

 

[Giz]

But his insanity does seem awfully convenient, in that the voices in his head always tell him to do things which benefit his vices and which he wants to do.

Also, being mentally ill isn't enough, the person has to be insane to the point they don't know that what they did was wrong. The fact that he kidnapped her at night at knifepoint, chained her up, then disguised her, and intentionally tried to thwart rescue efforts in various ways makes it seem like this guy knew he wasn't supposed to be doing what he was doing.

Indeed. I remember John Douglass (FBI serial killer investigator) giving his opinion on insanity/not responsible for their actions defence as being (paraphrased from memory): "I never heard of any of them who were insane/irresponsible enough to attempt to murder someone in front of a uniformed police officer. If the opportunity wasn't there then they would go away and try again elsewhere or on another night".

 

[Hellbound]

Hmm.

Hopefulyl a lawyer around here can correct me, but my understadning of the insanity plea is not as simple as "I'm crazy, let me go". I believe (in the U.S.) they have to show that the person could not distinguish right from wrong. Therefore a diagnosed sociopath would still be guilty of murder. Or a metnally retarded child, depending on circumstances adn that childs understanding. Things like attempts to hide the crime from others, dispose of the body, lying to cover for it, and similar point against an insanity defense.

Of course, I may be completely off-base here, so I eagerly await correction

 

[mediocrity511]

What about those people who are perfectly fine if they're on their meds, but not when they're off them ?

Should these people remain in custody forever, on their meds being perfectly fine and presenting no threat to anyone ?

Or is the risk that they may go off their meds and commit a crime sufficient to continue to detain them ?

In the Uk at least, such people can be given a community treatment order which compels them by law to take their medication or face incarceration (normally after a period of hospitalisation,not just at the initial trial). Also with long acting meds such as depot injections available this can help stop that issue aswell.

 

[Psi Baba]

I imagine that a history habitual drug use would tend to nullify any kind of insanity claim because it can never be determined whether his actions at any given time were due to insanity or to the influence of drugs. And as for the old "voices in the head" thing, that's something that's absolutely impossible to prove.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

If the crime is the result of an illness, what's the rationale behind putting the person in prison after he becomes healthy again? Do we punish people for being sick?

Since prosecutors and judges are often elected positions they must pander to the voter to stay employed. Meanwhile the average American voter is a bloodthirsty, reactionary puritan who thinks "revenge" and "misery" is synonymous with "justice." The circumstances of each case don't matter. All that matters is to the average American knuckle-dragger citizen that The Law is The Law, The Law is good, and those who break The Law must be punished as horribly as possible.

For instance:

Society needs to be protected from lunatics like this. If he's criminally insane then lock him up forever. He needs to be dead but he can't be executed. Myabe someone will shiv him in the mental hospital or prison or be beaten to death like Jeffrey dahmer.

You see, it's not enough that men like Mitchell and Dahmer would be rendered incapable of harming society through a lifetime of incarceration. Oh no! They must be killed and if the state is unwilling then they must be murdered ! Dahmer and another high-profile Wisconsin murderer were beaten to death with a mop handle by another inmate while the three were on janitorial detail. After the act, everyone snickered about how justice was finally served and there were even whispers about the prison making arrangements for the murder to take place. Virtually no one felt what happened was "wrong."

Take the issue of prison rape: A sane, compassionate person would think rape under any circumstance was abominable, but here in the U.S. prison rape is seen as part of the American prison experience. In fact, we laugh and tell jokes about "dropping the soap." We expect prisoners to be sexually degraded as part of their "punishment."

And those felons who "paid their debt to society?" They don't have much to look forward to on the outside. They can't vote. Their prospects for descent employment are close to nil. They are forever branded with the social stigma of "ex-con," a pariah now and forever. Is it any wonder why many go back to a life of crime?

When it comes to crime and punishment (and foreign policy) Americans want blood. They want their prisons to be Hell on Earth; places of pain and death where people are treated like animals for breaking the laws. It doesn't matter if the prisoner is mentally ill or handicapped, they must be treated like animals too. Anyone who dares speak out is painted a "soft-on crime liberal" who coddles the criminal element and wants to turn rapists and murders loose on red-blooded, mom/baseball/apple pie, Norman Rockwell-painted America's innocent children.

If you want compassion for prisoners from Americans, you have to wait for it's vindictive culture to change. You'll also have to wait until Hell freezes over...

...and since Hell doesn't exist...

 

[TragicMonkey]

wants to turn rapists and murders loose on red-blooded, mom/baseball/apple pie, Norman Rockwell-painted America's innocent children.

At the risk of derailing yet another thread, I'd just like to say that pretty much everybody in Norman Rockwell paintings looks like a complete psychopath to me. They all look like they're about to explode into a frenzy of bloodsoaked slaughter, laughing the whole time. Which is fine in itself, I guess, but why people find those pictures nice is beyond me. Creepy as hell.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

At the risk of derailing yet another thread, I'd just like to say that pretty much everybody in Norman Rockwell paintings looks like a complete psychopath to me. They all look like they're about to explode into a frenzy of bloodsoaked slaughter, laughing the whole time. Which is fine in itself, I guess, but why people find those pictures nice is beyond me. Creepy as hell.

I never noticed that before, but now that you mention it...

I wonder how many severed heads Norman kept in his freezer?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I never noticed that before, but now that you mention it...

I wonder how many severed heads Norman kept in his freezer?

Store them face down and blood will pool in the cheeks for an "apple cheek" appearance. Wholesome Americana at its best!

 

[blutoski]

The prosecution has finished their case. Now it is up to the defense to try to show that David Mitchell, who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart eight plus years ago is not guilty by reason of insanity. It is not really in question whether he did it or not. His wife has already confessed and been sentenced. The question is whether he is sane.

Or is it?

Why should this monster get a pass just because he is insane? Could it not be argued that anybody who commits a heinous crime, whether it be murder or rape, is insane? What does being insane really have to do with it? Okay, it might make a difference in how you treat him while incarcerated. But should it make a difference in the sentencing? Who is more dangerous to society, a sane person who has committed a crime where he made bad decisions, or a crazy person who doesn't even recognize that he made bad decisions? Who is more likely to be rehabilitated?

For me, I say that insanity should not get you any time off. Indeed, it should get you extra time. An insane person has a much higher standard to meet in proving that they are fit to re-enter society. Perhaps they should be prevented from ever re-entering society, because they cannot be trusted to "stay sane".

But truth is, I'm not convinced that David Mitchell is insane, and indeed he was certified competent to stand trial. He does not ramble. He does not do anything but sing hymns in court, which, of course, gets him thrown out of the courtroom where the jurors don't see his nasty visage. Is this craziness? I say no. This is a calculated move by a violent sociopath who is trying to speed up his chance of getting out and doing the same thing again. Oh yeah, he's a megalomaniac. Yes, he has some crazy beliefs. But IMO, he knows exactly what he did and is putting on this act to escape punishment. He's no more crazy than many legions of Christians who use some weird concept of God to excuse their bad behavior.

So in either case, I hope they give him the maximum allowed. Frankly, I'd say this is one of the extremely rare cases where I'd give a nod to the death penalty. There is absolutely no doubt of his guilt. He has admitted it. His wife has testified to it. He tied this fourteen year-old girl between two trees and raped her repeatedly. There is no doubt that he feels no remorse whatsoever. It is apparent in everything he does. There is no doubt that he would be a danger if ever released. To do so would be unthinkable. I see no reason at all to keep this piece of scum alive. It would serve no purpose, other than to give the jail keepers some work. He is either incurably insane or incurably evil. Frankly, I'm not sure how much difference there is between the two.

So would keeping him alive show our humanity? I say no. I say it would be about as humane as cutting out a cancer but allowing it to stay alive.

This is a very old debate.

There is no agreement in our society on ethics. There is a pull among three frameworks:

* teleological (aka "consequentialist")
* virtue (intentions)
* deontological (aka "rule")

The concept of not guilty due to mental incapacity is tied to virtue - it's based on the principle that people need to be punished for acts that have bad intentions as well as for acts that have bad outcomes.

It follows that people may not be punished for acts that had good intentions but bad outcomes.

In this case, the premise of insanity is one of agency. If I didn't do something on purpose, should the punishment be the same as if I did?

classic example: does a mentally delayed person who does not understand the danger of a gun and misfires it, killing somebody, get punished the same way as somebody who carefully plans and shoots his mother for an inheritance because the outcome (a dead person) is the same?

Many people are OK with distinguishing between manslaughter and homicide based on the premise of intention.

The purpose of "insanity defense" (It's not actually called that) is to assess whether punishment makes sense for somebody who may not have had agency when the crime took place.

These verdicts are actually quite rare, and when they're assigned, it's usually pretty obvious. The accused was typically demonstrably unable to comprehend the consequences or meaning of their actions at the time of the crime.





Example for consideration:

There was a case a few years ago involving a Canadian teenager who killed some locals while doing volunteer work in Africa. He was experiencing a severe psychosis as a rare side effect of malaria medication. Bad genetics, unfortunately.

He can't even remember why he macheted the victims to death. Witnesses say he clearly thought they were attacking him and slashed out.

Local punishment is firing squad. Is this appropriate given the circumstances?

If not: what's the difference between somebody with a medically induced psychosis vs somebody with a congenital psychosis?




Another thing to think about... being declared mentally unfit is not the same as being able to walk. They can still declare the accused a threat to society *because* he's mentally unfit.

This has led to longer incarceration on average, rather than letting criminals go free.

There's a fellow in a mental institution in Ontario who cut up his wife's face in the 1980s. The criminal sentence for this type of assault and battery would have been 2 years, but it was determined he was psychotic. He had a history of stopping taking his meds. He's been involuntary ("locked up") for 25 years and is challenging the right of psychiatrists to keep somebody off the street indefinitely because they think he's capable of being violent again.

 

[Rolls]

I also agree with the O.P. 100%. If ever there was a person deserving of the death penalty, Mr. Mitchell is that person, IMHO.

Rolls

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not insane: "You made the decision to do this thing; we are punishing you by locking you up for a period proportional to the severity of the action you chose to do."
Insane: "Something that is wrong with you resulted in you doing this thing; we are locking you up until we have fixed what is wrong with you."

Makes sense to me. You punish a bad guy and treat a crazy guy. Different problems, different solutions.