Guilty or Insane?

[The Atheist]

There's been a fascinating and horrific case in NZ that recently wrapped up, with the conviction of a mother for killing her three children.

She tried the insanity defence, but that failed. I struggle to see why, as I can't think of anything more insane than deliberately murdering your three young children one at a time.

The background is here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/laure...majority-decision/VK4ZWQQHJJG2TFLSERAAOGFLTM/

Notable points to me are the majority verdict, and even more importantly, the fact that she's being held in a secure mental unit prior to sentencing. If she's sane enough to be convicted of murder, I would have thought she's sane enough to be in jail like any other non-insane murderer.

Laura Dickason's family believes post-partum depression was the problem, and the psychiatric industry is by no means unanimous on the subject.

The other point is, I fail to see how either justice or the prison system is served by the verdict.

 

[theprestige]

Por que no los dos?

"Guilty by reason of insanity" seems like a verdict an atheistic society should be happy to accept. We don't ask whether the rabid dog has agency to assume guilt for its crimes. We don't even call them crimes. We just put the beast down, for being irreconcilably inimical to our society.

If someone is so mentally deranged as to fail the tests of empathy and conformity that membership in human society requires, are they still human in any practical sense? Is there any moral reason not to put them down like any other violent beast that intrudes on our community?

 

[The Atheist]

"Guilty by reason of insanity" seems like a verdict an atheistic society should be happy to accept.

That was an available choice and the jury chose not to use it.

Is there any moral reason not to put them down like any other violent beast that intrudes on our community?

Your right wing is showing.

 

[welshdean]

Por que no los dos?

"Guilty by reason of insanity" seems like a verdict an atheistic society should be happy to accept. We don't ask whether the rabid dog has agency to assume guilt for its crimes. We don't even call them crimes. We just put the beast down, for being irreconcilably inimical to our society.

If someone is so mentally deranged as to fail the tests of empathy and conformity that membership in human society requires, are they still human in any practical sense? Is there any moral reason not to put them down like any other violent beast that intrudes on our community?

Aside from our own humanity?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

There's been a fascinating and horrific case in NZ that recently wrapped up, with the conviction of a mother for killing her three children.

She tried the insanity defence, but that failed. I struggle to see why, as I can't think of anything more insane than deliberately murdering your three young children one at a time.

The background is here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/laure...majority-decision/VK4ZWQQHJJG2TFLSERAAOGFLTM/

Notable points to me are the majority verdict, and even more importantly, the fact that she's being held in a secure mental unit prior to sentencing. If she's sane enough to be convicted of murder, I would have thought she's sane enough to be in jail like any other non-insane murderer.

Laura Dickason's family believes post-partum depression was the problem, and the psychiatric industry is by no means unanimous on the subject.

The other point is, I fail to see how either justice or the prison system is served by the verdict.

It is not the actions themselves which would be insane, rather what lies behind those actions.

Violence of any form is not a necessary part of insanity.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Legal insanity is not the same thing as being crazy.

Sure it would be crazy to kill your children, but in order to prove legal insanity you would need to be unaware of either what you were doing at all or the consequenses of it, or else unable to be blamed for what you did. If you hear unblockable voices telling you to kill because you're deeply schizophrenic then you're not able to appreciate the consequences of the act you're committing. You might not even realise that they're dead. If you suffer a psychotic break and don't even know what you're doing you can't be blamed for the actions you commit while you are not actually in control of yourself.

If you're in control and know full well what you're doing then you're not legally insane. You're just crazy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Jeffrey Dahmer and Wisconsin law

Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial murderer and cannibal. Yet the state of Wisconsin decided that he was not insane. It is difficult to get my mind around this.

 

[lobosrul5]

Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial murderer and cannibal. Yet the state of Wisconsin decided that he was not insane. It is difficult to get my mind around this.

Because, legally speaking, he wasn't insane. He knew his actions were wrong. He's actually a surprisingly rational person. I cannot wrap my head around people murdering their spouse for money either. Does that mean they should get off scot free?

 

[catsmate]

Aside from our own humanity?

And the frequent errors.

 

[theprestige]

Aside from our own humanity?

Our own humanity easily admits putting down violent animals. It's often the prescription for any pet dog that bites someone.

So what makes a human? Is it the genetic code? The overall appearance? Some spark of human reason and emotion?

 

[Olmstead]

Prison vs. prison with forced therapy.

The insanity defense isn't the loophole many people make it out to be.

 

[p0lka]

Por que no los dos?

"Guilty by reason of insanity" seems like a verdict an atheistic society should be happy to accept. We don't ask whether the rabid dog has agency to assume guilt for its crimes. We don't even call them crimes. We just put the beast down, for being irreconcilably inimical to our society.

If someone is so mentally deranged as to fail the tests of empathy and conformity that membership in human society requires, are they still human in any practical sense? Is there any moral reason not to put them down like any other violent beast that intrudes on our community?

Re: highlighted. What you mean by an athiestic society?
Also, some people would prefer not to have to put the violent beast down if there are better solutions. It's not a default position for some people.

 

[The Atheist]

Legal insanity is not the same thing as being crazy.

Yes, I realise all that.

I suppose the real difference is that if a psychiatrist thinks he can suppress the insanity with drugs, you're insane.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

medication to render one competent

Yes, I realise all that.

I suppose the real difference is that if a psychiatrist thinks he can suppress the insanity with drugs, you're insane.

This passage may be germane to one issue being discussed: "The government then filed a motion to medicate him forcibly, to render him competent to stand trial. The government also requested an order for Mr. Hernandez-Vasquez to be assessed for dangerousness. At a hearing on March 24, 2006, the district court granted the government's motion to medicate Mr. Hernandez-Vasquez involuntarily, for the sole purpose of rendering him competent to stand trial."

 

[Chanakya]

This passage may be germane to one issue being discussed: "The government then filed a motion to medicate him forcibly, to render him competent to stand trial. The government also requested an order for Mr. Hernandez-Vasquez to be assessed for dangerousness. At a hearing on March 24, 2006, the district court granted the government's motion to medicate Mr. Hernandez-Vasquez involuntarily, for the sole purpose of rendering him competent to stand trial."

No clue about this case, but generally thinking about this:

What makes for a successful insanity plea? Insanity, however defined, at the time the crime was committed? Or is it at the time of trial? Or do you need to be sane, however defined, at both times, the time the crime was committed, and during trial as well, for a regular sentencing, for rejecting an insanity plea?

I'd imagine the former. The latter's probably a different category. After all, if a criminal goes insane a year into prison, I'd imagine he'd be treated, then if and when better sent right back to jail. So, what's important is whether at the time of the crime the perpetrator was insane, his state of mind during trial should be irrelevant as far as the verdict and the sentence.

(Not a lawyer, as is probably obvious. Just thinking this through, on general terms.)

 

[Planigale]

In the UK, someone may be incompetent to stand trial; so may never be tried but a court hearing may be held to acertain the facts of the case. A trial of the facts. The court can make a treatment order. This may include indeterminate detention.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50044277

Someone may be sane enough at time of the trial to stand trial, but have been mad enough at the time of the offence to successfully plead not gulity by reason of insanity (or in rare cases of e.g. night rage - automatism). Again the consequence may be a treatment order and detention, but if mad at time of the offence they will be not guilty of a crime.

Puerperal psychosis is certainly a sufficiently severe mental disorder in some cases to justify a defence of insanity. In England because murder originally carried a mandatory death penalty and because there was sympathy with mothers accused of killing their children the crime of infanticide was introduced to avoid convicting them of murder (in fact prior to the act almost never was a mother executed but they were repreived; the Victorians were far keener on the death penalty in theory than in practice, e.g. sodomy almost never resulted in actual execution despite it being a capital offence). Infanticide has fallen out of fashion as a crime (though still on the statute book), and instead the crown brings a charge of homicide leaving the defence to claim a defence of insanity.

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/100-years-of-the-infanticide-act

 

[PitPat]

No clue about this case, but generally thinking about this:

What makes for a successful insanity plea? Insanity, however defined, at the time the crime was committed? Or is it at the time of trial? Or do you need to be sane, however defined, at both times, the time the crime was committed, and during trial as well, for a regular sentencing, for rejecting an insanity plea?

I'd imagine the former. The latter's probably a different category. After all, if a criminal goes insane a year into prison, I'd imagine he'd be treated, then if and when better sent right back to jail. So, what's important is whether at the time of the crime the perpetrator was insane, his state of mind during trial should be irrelevant as far as the verdict and the sentence.

(Not a lawyer, as is probably obvious. Just thinking this through, on general terms.)

In US, to my understanding, you may avoid immediate trial if found mentally incompetent (e.g. Lori Vallow). So it's held off for awhile until it's determined that they are. So you were crazy then, but not now.

Insanity defense was hugely successful until John Hinckley Jr and then the rules tightened up a lot about allowing that defense. And it's much rarer than it used to be and even less successful (i.e., temporary insanity).

I think there are a lot of seriously mentally ill people sentenced to prison due to vengeance tendencies. Just my opinion, but I wouldn't want them to be assigned as my cellmate.