Elizabeth Smart, David Mitchell and the "Insanity Defense"

Tricky

Briefly immortal
Tricky
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
43,750
Location
The Group W Bench
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.
 
I agree 100%. If I was on the jury, I would vote guilty even if I thought he was batcrap crazy.
 
It's an interesting Catch 22. I remember the same debate taking place when Peter Sutcliffe was on trial (the "Yorkshire Ripper", if anyone doesn't remember the case). The argument seemed to go something along the lines that nobody who was sane could possibly do such things, therefore by definition he must be insane. This does lead to the bizarre situation, if that argument is accepted, that nobody can be convicted of certain crimes because simply committing the crime is proof of insanity.

At his trial, Sutcliffe pleaded not guilty to 13 counts of murder, but guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The basis of this defence was his claim that he was the tool of God's will. Sutcliffe first claimed to have heard voices while working as a gravedigger, that ultimately ordered him to kill prostitutes. He claimed that the voices originated from a headstone of a deceased Polish man, Bronisław Zapolski, and that the voices were that of God.

He also pleaded guilty to seven counts of attempted murder. The prosecution intended to accept Sutcliffe's plea after four psychiatrists diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia. However, the trial judge, Mr Justice Boreham, demanded an unusually detailed explanation of the prosecution reasoning. After a two-hour representation by the Attorney-General Sir Michael Havers, a 90-minute lunch break and a further 40 minutes of legal discussion, he rejected the diminished responsibility plea and the expert testimonies of the four psychiatrists, insisting that the case should be dealt with by a jury.
Click to expand...


So in fact in Sutcliffe's case the insanity plea was not accepted by the judge (although the prosecution were prepared to buy it) and he was found guilty. However, he was genuinely suffering from schizophrenia, and in the end had to be moved from the prison system into the "secure hospital" system. He recently tried to claim he was cured and could be rehabilitated, but further legal hearings pretty much said "throw away the key".

I don't know how it is in the US, but in fact around here it doesn't make a huge difference whether the perpetrator cops an insanity plea or not, they are still going to be locked up - the only difference is where. Prison, or a secure "hospital" for the criminally insane. The experience with Sutcliffe suggests that those who are genuinely mentally ill are better dealt with in the latter facility anyway.

So is it any different in the USA? Would he not just be locked up anyway, even if he does convince the court he's insane?

Rolfe.
 
Personally I think the sentence should be the same in case of sanity or insanity , but the only difference should be whether you spend it fully in prison, or start in an insane asylum, until healed, and if healed one day, spend the reminder of the sentence in prison. IOW, treat the illness but leave the sentence identical.
 
Sure he would be locked up in a nut bin. But if he convinces some doctor that he isn't crazy/a threat anymore, he could go free.
 
Aepervius said:
Personally I think the sentence should be the same in case of sanity or insanity , but the only difference should be whether you spend it fully in prison, or start in an insane asylum, until healed, and if healed one day, spend the reminder of the sentence in prison. IOW, treat the illness but leave the sentence identical.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Tricky said:
it might make a difference in how you treat him while incarcerated.
Click to expand...
That's the major part here. If a person for example have insane violent attacks on daily basis, he shouldn't be in a prison where he could still hurt other people (prisoners or guards) but rather in a padded room and proper sadation \ restraints.

Tricky said:
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".
Click to expand...
That's sort of a big brush, isn't it?
What sort of insanity and if it's treatable is the bigger issue.

For example, imagine someone is having a physical disease X and nobody bothered diagnosing the guy until the trial. Then they find out that if (very big if) you give him a magical pill he will become sane like the rest of us.

Now how do you judge it? We have a magical pill that can rehabilitate the person far better off than any time in prison and it's not like there's a deterence factor on a mentally ill person.
 
Here a successful insanity defence will get you detained at the governor's pleasure. A conviction of an offence will have a fixed term, so you can end up locked up for longer if you are declared insane than if you are found guilty.
 
Lolly said:
Here a successful insanity defence will get you detained at the governor's pleasure. A conviction of an offence will have a fixed term, so you can end up locked up for longer if you are declared insane than if you are found guilty.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what happens here - much more likely to spend longer locked away if you are judged "mentally ill".
 
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.
 
Ryokan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Peter Sutcliffe example is quite a good one in this case. When he tried for release on account of being cured and all that, earlier this year, the judge reviewed the case and said there is simply no way you are getting out ever, forget it.

I imagine he might still be eligible for compassionate release if he becomes terminally ill, but short of that, he's staying firmly locked up.

Rolfe.
 
I don't really but that this guy is insane, at least not to the extent he claims. He took pains to cover up his actions. He disguised Elizabeth and would take down missing persons signs of her in areas they were in.


Also, Elizabeth makes the point that everything he did was self serving. God never seemed to tell him to do something that would disadvantage him or that would benefit another person. He just spent all his time doing drugs, drinking, having sex with his wife and raping Elizabeth.

I feel that he just used his religion to excuse his behavior, not that his beliefs caused his behavior.
 
Ryokan said:
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?
Click to expand...
If a mentally ill person commits a heineous crime the protection of society comes first. There have been many criminals who haved served their time after being model prisoners who have gone on to kill or rape someone else after they are released. Here in Georgia a rapist served 30 years and soon after his release he was caught trying to rape another woman.

Lock them up and keep them locked up.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
I don't really but that this guy is insane, at least not to the extent he claims. He took pains to cover up his actions. He disguised Elizabeth and would take down missing persons signs of her in areas they were in.


Also, Elizabeth makes the point that everything he did was self serving. God never seemed to tell him to do something that would disadvantage him or that would benefit another person. He just spent all his time doing drugs, drinking, having sex with his wife and raping Elizabeth.

I feel that he just used his religion to excuse his behavior, not that his beliefs caused his behavior.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...?
 
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.

Which doesn't mean they can't be removed from society if their actions are harmful, of course. It's just that they aren't removed as punishment, but as a result of their condition requiring treatment that includes removal from general society. Just as someone who comes down with a dangerous and contagious disease might be quarantined, even against their will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom