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

[Mudcat]

Who on Earth thinks that? I never met anyone who does.

Robert Prey.

 

[KingMerv00]

Robert Prey.

Hollywood and TV does too at times. I remember at least one courtroom drama where it was revealed the defendant was faking insanity with the implication that "got away with it".

If you had just plead guilty to manslaughter, you'd be free in a few years. Instead, you'll be confined for the rest of your life, most likely. Congrats!

 

[ddt]

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.

This.

Of course, it differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here (the Netherlands) nobody in their right mind tries an insanity plea. Life imprisonment is rare (41 cases since WW2). Insanity, on the other hand, means the judge sentences you to involuntary commitment in a so-called TBS clinic where you are treated. However, the last ten years these clinics have made longstay wards for the hopeless cases that are, effectively, not treated anymore but just stay there for the rest of their lives. In 2006, there were 143 persons in longstay and the projections for 2012 are 243.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

I agree that the attitude is far more common than I would like.

Others have already hit the big points.

I just want to elaborate on the issues surrounding mental illness. In America, if someone developed a neurological illness that caused his arm to flop around uncontrollably, people would be sympathetic and suggest talking to qualified doctors. These sympathetic people would understand that prescription medication may be necessary to treat such a debilitating illness. But if someone developed a neurological illness that caused depression, then reactions might range from "quit faking it" to "you need to snap out of it" to "you just need to think positive thoughts" to "you are too scarey for me to hang around" to "you are one of those people who rely too much on prescription drugs" to "you just need more faith in God." Anyone with a strong understanding of U.S. cultural literacy and history can trace these attitudes back several decades or more.

Thus fear, ignorance, and stupidity drive some people to adopt absurd positions regarding severe mental illness.

 

[stanfr]

In my 5 years as a public defender in New York, I represented numerous mentally ill individuals. It was extremely frustrating, to say the least, because the courts would bend over backwards to find a defendant 'competent' to stand trial. Some clients would go on and on about how they were in contact with aliens, or defending themselves against mass government conspiracies, but so long as they could demonstrate some minute sign of being conscious of their surroundings, they were 'competent'. My impression was that the courts were ill adept at dealing with the mentally ill.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why would you expect the 'courts' to be competent at identifying the mentally ill ?
You don't think someone could convincingly pretend to be in contact with aliens, or a victim of conspiracies ?

Even if they weren't pretending, would they necessarily be unable to discern right from wrong ?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

It would help clarify this issue if there was some kind of standard requiring that defense attorneys not 'game the system' with feeble-to-ridiculous attempts at NGI defenses. I get annoyed when some defendent's lawyer starts telling the press that his client "was under a lot of stress from going through a divorce" as though that was somehow justification or sufficiently disabling to make murdering his estranged wife and children something he just couldn't help doing. Thousands of people are going through a divorce right now, and they're not plotting murder.

Maybe the Seattle area has an unusually high concentration of "save 'em by NGI" attorneys, but it's ubiquitous here. It's rare when that's NOT offered, at least provisionally -- forcing the court to spend time and money having the defendent examined by several psychologists. There needs to be some kind of standard to prevent this ongoing abuse of the concept.

I recognize that real insanity exists; but it's not the cause or circumstance of most murders. In the broadest sense of the term, you have to be 'crazy' to kill another human except in self-defense; but that's got nothing to do with the legal question of, "Did the defendent know what they were doing?"

I think it's abuse of the system for clearly sane people that leads to that anger the OP noted. Also, remember that the standards for involuntary confinement are a lot different now than they were in the 60's. Now, someone MUST be released unless they are deemed an immediate threat to self or others. The Cuckoo's Nest "you're stuck here" does not apply anymore. That, more than anything, is why we have the wandering street crazies and the mentally ill homeless...just believing you're receiving direct orders from Venus is not grounds to put you away. You have to actually demonstrate a desire (and often, the ability) to harm people before any action can be taken.

 

[KingMerv00]

Why would you expect the 'courts' to be competent at identifying the mentally ill ?

What better place is there?

Trials are an attempt to reach a rational conclusion by systematically analyzing evidence and avoiding bias. In the case of insanity, "courts" don't (or at least shouldn't) reach conclusions on their own. Claims of insanity should be supported by expert testimony and evidence of odd behavior.

You don't think someone could convincingly pretend to be in contact with aliens, or a victim of conspiracies ?

Maybe. But it was pointed out earlier that faking incompetence doesn't really help you. In fact, it almost certainly makes things worse for you.

Even if they weren't pretending, would they necessarily be unable to discern right from wrong ?

No it doesn't but you are confusing the insanity defense with incompetent to stand trial. The first says that you were unaware of the nature or morality of your acts. The second says that you are unable to make rational decisions regarding the trial itself. They are two very different issues. One could be insane at the time of the crime but competent to stand trial...or sane at the time of the crime but incompetent at stand trial...or etc. etc.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm not confused about anything..

I just responded ( .... pretty much rhetorically ) to the post above mine..

But thanks for your insight.