Why do people think being "insane" is getting away with it?

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
It continues to amaze me that people think being declared "innocent by reason of insanity" is the same as just being straight up "innocent."

Do people really not get the gravity of such a declaration by a court and how it probably is much worse for the defendant in the long run?

I bring it up because a lot of people seem ticked off that James Holmes might be declared insane.
 
Travis said:
It continues to amaze me that people think being declared "innocent by reason of insanity" is the same as just being straight up "innocent."
Click to expand...
Who on Earth thinks that? I never met anyone who does.
 
People do think that though, mostly because you can't execute a legally insane person.
 
Depends on the case. There is that cannibal murderer in japan who checked himself out of the mental hospital.

And the twinky defense got a lesser sentence.

Reality is complicated.
 
Mark6 said:
Who on Earth thinks that? I never met anyone who does.
Click to expand...

I have run across it a few times in discussions about the Colorado shootings. Emotions are still pretty raw, once people calm down catch a breath they may take more reasonable positions.
 
Travis said:
It continues to amaze me that people think being declared "innocent by reason of insanity" is the same as just being straight up "innocent."

Do people really not get the gravity of such a declaration by a court and how it probably is much worse for the defendant in the long run?

I bring it up because a lot of people seem ticked off that James Holmes might be declared insane.
Click to expand...

Technically, no one is ever found innocent, just not-guilty. A slight, but very distinct difference.
 
One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo%27s_Nest_poster.jpg

McMurphy: "Sixty-eight days, buddy. Sixty-eight days."
Orderly: "What the **** you talking about, days! That's in jail, sucker. You still don't know where you're at?"
McMurphy: "Yeah, where am I at, Washington?"
Orderly: "With us, baby, you're with us. And you're gonna stay with us until we let you go."
 
I'm fairly sure that courts use "guilty but insane" rather than innocent for reasons of insanity.
 
Quite frankly, I think all murderers are insane. No excuse here, baby.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
People do think that though, mostly because you can't execute a legally insane person.
Click to expand...

Legally insane and medically insane are not the same thing.

As far as I can tell, someone could have very serious mental issue and actually be insane, but not legally insane.

I hope we have a lawyer here that can clarify this for us.
 
it may vary state by state, but the philosophy is that it does not serve society to adopt a punitive correction against someone literally incapable of distinguishing moral choices. Instead the focus will shift to what is necessary to protect the public.
 
Many people worry that someone might fake insanity and avoid the usual punishment. Where that punishment would be expected to be more severe than treatment for insanity, that's "getting away with" something.

That concern is distinct from whether judgement based on actual insanity would amount to getting away with something.
 
Travis said:
It continues to amaze me that people think being declared "innocent by reason of insanity" is the same as just being straight up "innocent."

Do people really not get the gravity of such a declaration by a court and how it probably is much worse for the defendant in the long run?

I bring it up because a lot of people seem ticked off that James Holmes might be declared insane.
Click to expand...

I think it is a bit like this. Do you know that episode of Fawlty Towers when Basil is trying really hard to get back to the hotel for gourmet night after so many things have gone wrong? He's just bought a duck and is supposed to bring it back to the hotel and believes he might just be able to pull it off when suddenly, his car won't start. He's had trouble with this car before but now it is causing problems for him in such a way that he thinks the car is doing it deliberately. It can't, of course, it is a car and yet he definitely thinks he will feel better if he gives it a damn. good. thrashing!



Now, whether this guy was insane or not, if we can blame inanimate objects which we can't rationally perceive as having any animus towards us, then clearly we can find it easier to blame a person for killing all those people.
 
Another aspect of this is that in several states, an individual found to have been insane at the time of the crime can be treated back to the extent that they can be "involved in their own defense" and then put on trial for the crime.
 
gnome said:
it may vary state by state, but the philosophy is that it does not serve society to adopt a punitive correction against someone literally incapable of distinguishing moral choices. Instead the focus will shift to what is necessary to protect the public.
Click to expand...

Euthanasia, probably. If it can't distinguish moral choices, then it probably isn't human in the way that matters most to society.
 
Travis said:
It continues to amaze me that people think being declared "innocent by reason of insanity" is the same as just being straight up "innocent."

Do people really not get the gravity of such a declaration by a court and how it probably is much worse for the defendant in the long run?

I bring it up because a lot of people seem ticked off that James Holmes might be declared insane.
Click to expand...

It's the wording. I personally have always thought it should be

Guilty by reason of insanity not Innocent.

He did it. He may be insane but he's guilty of doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom