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

[BStrong]

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, actually the verdict would be Not Guilty by reason of... abrreviated as NGI.

The notion is that in some notable cases, the actor did in fact "get away" with murder - Mark Chapman being the best known public example.

Locally an officer was murdered on duty (Dave Chetcuti) and the shooter managed to work the insanity angle - I have no doubt that one day there will hearings where this guy's release will be considered.

The public in general wants murderers punished, and they see the NGI as somehow avoiding punishment, and in some cases they're 100% correct.

 

[BStrong]

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.

I wish that was the rule in all 50.

 

[mikedenk]

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.

I don't get it. Aren't NGI verdicts based on the defendant's state of mind during the commission of the crime? And not based on their ability to participate in their own defense? I thought that was "Incompetent to Stand Trial", which is a different concept.

 

[Halfcentaur]

People want revenge.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The security for this guy is going to comsume the tax revenue from at least one - 1%'er ...

 

[casebro]

Hmmmm, I suppose that a lot of trials centered around insanity never get to the trial stage? Not a matter of "insane during the commission". but "Obviously insane during the commission, and so whacko now that he can't participate in his own defense", the legal finding being " no trial until he is sane enough to participate, send him off to the the state hospital for the criminally insane until that time" ?

The whole thing being the constitutional right to mount a 'sane' legal defense?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have less issues with Not guilty by of reason of insanity than I do with Not guilty by of reason of temporary insanity.

If a person is barking mad, put them in a place that is actually designed to look after and treat them, and that isn't jail or death row. If that treatment can make them better and no longer a danger to society, then give them a second chance, it's not their fault their brain went wonky on them and they lost the ability to reason normally.

Temporary Insanity I have a bigger issue with as it's not really treatable, it's like a UFO, there when the crime happened, but gone now. I feel that these people are more dangerous than the truely insane because most of the time they are fully rational, but then something triggers them again. They need to be locked up and not let out, and certainly not just let go.

 

[gnome]

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.

The wording you suggest misstates the meaning of "guilty" in this context. "Guilty" is not whether the person did the deed, it is whether the person is judged criminally responsible.

 

[gnome]

I think the kind of "temporary insanity" PhantomWolf worries about iis highly rare, and even more rare in a courtroom. It's not as if the person is arguing "hey, I was just minding my own business and suddenly I stabbed the guy and couldn't stop myself! But I'm feeling much better now."

If I have the right impression, in the rare cases this defense is attempted (and in the even more rare case that it succeeds) the defense argues there was a known factor that removed or diminished the defendant's ability to be able to control their behavior or be aware it was wrong... and then demonstrate that the known factor is unlikely to be a problem again. IANAL of course.

 

[KingMerv00]

And the twinky defense got a lesser sentence.

"Twinkie defense" is a terrible misnomer. That "defense" had very little to do with junk food. The defense attorney argued that the defendant had been deeply depressed and presented his sudden consumption of unhealthy food as a symptom, not the cause of his depression. They then claimed that his depression made it impossible for their client to form the required premeditation to be guilty of first degree murder. The jury agreed and instead convicted him of voluntary manslaughter. He was sentences to a little over 7 years...for killing two human beings.

I don't blame the defense attorney for doing their job. The Harvey Milk criminal trial WAS a miscarriage of justice but only because the jury was full of idiots and/or bigots. Dan White (the murderer and giant *******) demostrated his ability to plan by driving to the location, sneaking into a government building through a basement window with a loaded gun and hunting down his targets. Had White really been incapable of premeditation, he would barely be able to tie his shoes.

 

[KingMerv00]

Temporary Insanity I have a bigger issue with as it's not really treatable, it's like a UFO, there when the crime happened, but gone now. I feel that these people are more dangerous than the truely insane because most of the time they are fully rational, but then something triggers them again. They need to be locked up and not let out, and certainly not just let go.

The thing about the insanity defense (temporary or otherwise) is that it is an affirmative defense. That means the defendant admits to the act and puts the burden of proof on himself instead of the state. It's pretty hard to convince a jury that "I was crazy then but I'm OK now".

There are certain times when it does make sense though. Michael Shermer was a cross country bicyclist years ago. During one race he failed to hydrate properly and started to hallucinate. When his race crew tried to help him, he thought they were aliens trying to kidnap him so he fought back. When he drank some water, he stopped being crazy. I agree that it is a pretty rare exception though.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I think we just don't like the idea that there can be a tragedy like this and the person who committed it could be considered 'not responsible' for it. There can be no closure or sense of justice if we don't have someone to blame and punish.

Add on top of that, the murderer might get better medical and psychiatric treatment than many of law-abiding people, and that they could then be released back into tne community. What's to stop them from doing it again?

Plus, deep down, we don't want to believe that someone can just snap and start killing random people for no reason. Because if that can happen once it can happen again and it makes people feel unsafe.

It's easier to punish the mentally ill for actions outside their control just so that the public can sleep better at night.

 

[KingMerv00]

It's easier to punish the mentally ill for actions outside their control just so that the public can sleep better at night.

Institutionalizing someone isn't supposed to be a punishment.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Institutionalizing someone isn't supposed to be a punishment.

I wasn't saying it was. I was referring to locking them up in normal prisons, which seems to be what the public usually wants.

 

[KingMerv00]

I wasn't saying it was. I was referring to locking them up in normal prisons, which seems to be what the public usually wants.

Ah...carry on.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
Yes.
I'd settle for burning his face off with a blow torch.

 

[I Ratant]

I have less issues with Not guilty by of reason of insanity than I do with Not guilty by of reason of temporary insanity.

If a person is barking mad, put them in a place that is actually designed to look after and treat them, and that isn't jail or death row. If that treatment can make them better and no longer a danger to society, then give them a second chance, it's not their fault their brain went wonky on them and they lost the ability to reason normally.

Temporary Insanity I have a bigger issue with as it's not really treatable, it's like a UFO, there when the crime happened, but gone now. I feel that these people are more dangerous than the truely insane because most of the time they are fully rational, but then something triggers them again. They need to be locked up and not let out, and certainly not just let go.

.
I have a problem with that.
Has the perp romanced the analyst into believing the perp is now an innocent lamb?
Why take the chance?

 

[KingMerv00]

.
I have a problem with that.
Has the perp romanced the analyst into believing the perp is now an innocent lamb?
Why take the chance?

Because maybe he's a human being with a disease and if genuinely cured, shouldn't be confined for the rest of his life just to make people feel better? You are worried about the chance of harm, why don't you worry about the chance of locking up a productive member or society? Some people can't be cured. Some can. We need to try our best either way.

You seem to think it is easily to get out of an asylum after murdering someone. Not sure why. I recall reading a study that those who claim the insanity defense spend more time in confinement than sane murderers.

 

[I Ratant]

Because maybe he's a human being with a disease and if genuinely cured, shouldn't be confined for the rest of his life just to make people feel better? You are worried about the chance of harm, why don't you worry about the chance of locking up a productive member or society? Some people can't be cured. Some can. We need to try our best either way.

You seem to think it is easily to get out of an asylum after murdering someone. Not sure why. I recall reading a study that those who claim the insanity defense spend more time in confinement than sane murderers.

.
There's too many (1 is too many) murderers released to murder again.
How come they get the license to kill, after proving they will do it at least once?

 

[KingMerv00]

.
There's too many (1 is too many) murderers released to murder again.

Maybe, but they are the sane ones. Like I said, the insane ones are less likely to get released if at all. If anything, you should be cheering FOR the insanity defense. It keeps them behind bars longer.

How come they get the license to kill, after proving they will do it at least once?

Cuz they don't get a license to kill. At least no more license than you.

Say hypothetically a persons insanity is factually linked to a operable brain tumor or can be removed by medication...if we can undo their insanity they are in effect a different person. A person who DIDN'T commit murder. Would you keep them confined? What purpose could it possibly serve?