Insanity Defense

    • Insanity Defense

      Curious about everyone's opinion. Do you think people should have the right to an insanity defence (I just read that it's banned in some places!)? Are some people not criminally responsible due to their state of mind at the time of the crime?

      And, do you think people ever exaggerate their mental state to get a "not guilty" verdict? I've actually heard that it should only be used in extreme cases because being found insane could land you in a hospital for an undetermined amount of time (until you're "better"), rather than a set jail sentence. However, it seems as though the public often seems to see the defence as an "easy way out", of sorts.



      I know the plea is used way less than it's made out to be, but I'm still interested.

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      It's all very deep, I don't know too much about the legal side of things in all honesty but of course with something like insanity we can't always be as sterile or straight in line as maybe we're used to being or supposed to be, especially in legal conflicts, court and all that.
      What I mean is that it's hard to judge who's sane or not, and really I think it's a dumb idea to try, obviously there are very smart people who can't speak the way we "normal" people might and obviously there are very stupid people that would strike you as intelligent by today's standards and I think it's the same thing for the scale of stupid to intelligent as sane to insane.

      I don't know how to answer your question but that was my immediate thought.

      EDIT; hey haha, dunno if im back, im keeping it on the DL :smoke:
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      [/CENTER]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by SMOKE. ().

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      Absolutely people should have the right to an insanity defense. Some people are simply not responsible for their crime(s).

      People over-exaggerate their mental state all the time; an insanity defense can be common in trials dealing with murder, rape, etc.
      Then again, insanity defenses are rarely successful, so a defendant would need to be mentally ill to a large degree for an insanity defense to even work.

      And with science gathering more and more information concerning behavioral genetics, it should be interesting to see how the legal system conforms. For example, if somebody is genetically hardwired to commit violence, are they legally responsible for their crimes? Where do we try the line?
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by LuklaAdvocate ().

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      I think people do deserve the right to an insanity case. Although they were the one who made those choices and did the crime, some people mentally do not realize that they did anything wrong, and therefore you can not charge someone of a crime they weren't aware they even committed. There are many psychological disorders that could have that effect on someone, and the mind does play with reality to someone who isn't mentally stable.

      I do realize though that people plead insanity in murder and rape cases just to get minimum punishment or to instead serve time in a mental institutions instead of facing capital punishment or life in prison. Although this happens, it still would be unfair to deprive someone of that right in my opinion.

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      SMOKE. wrote:

      It's all very deep, I don't know too much about the legal side of things in all honesty but of course with something like insanity we can't always be as sterile or straight in line as maybe we're used to being or supposed to be, especially in legal conflicts, court and all that.
      What I mean is that it's hard to judge who's sane or not, and really I think it's a dumb idea to try, obviously there are very smart people who can't speak the way we "normal" people might and obviously there are very stupid people that would strike you as intelligent by today's standards and I think it's the same thing for the scale of stupid to intelligent as sane to insane.

      I don't know how to answer your question but that was my immediate thought.

      EDIT; hey haha, dunno if im back, im keeping it on the DL :smoke:

      Welcome back anyway. ;)

      And yeah, it's exceptionally hard to judge. Especially since the definition is "insane at the time of the crime."

      Mama Bear wrote:


      I do realize though that people plead insanity in murder and rape cases just to get minimum punishment or to instead serve time in a mental institutions instead of facing capital punishment or life in prison.

      I think that's a good point, actually - I could see people trying to use the defence more often in places where capital punishment is allowed. But if you did something that would land you life in prison, I'd think it's pretty unlikely you'd be able to get out of a mental institution any earlier. Interesting thought, though.

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:


      And with science gathering more and more information concerning behavioral genetics, it should be interesting to see how the legal system conforms. For example, if somebody is genetically hardwired to commit violence, are they legally responsible for their crimes? Where do we try the line?

      Interesting thought, but I think while it may be something to consider, even if any sort of murder/violence gene is proven to exist, it wouldn't necessarily diminish their mental capacity.

      Suppose a gene exists that makes an individual predisposed to be gay, but they live in a society where being gay was one of the worst crimes one could commit. They would obviously have a much more difficult time suppressing their urges than a straight person
      (I don't in any way mean to imply that homosexuality is bad, it's just an example!)

      And if the gay gene idea doesn't work for people, you could apply the same thing to obesity -- there are genes that predispose individuals to becoming obese, but that doesn't mean that they have no choice or can't learn about the negative effects associated with obesity.


      LuklaAdvocate wrote:


      Then again, insanity defenses are rarely successful, so a defendant would need to be mentally ill to a large degree for an insanity defense to even work.

      If anyone is interested, this is why I've suddenly become interested:
      Story 1
      Story 2


      My Facebook feed has been popping up with things like "the justice system has failed us", etc. Some people just seem to be raging so hard and I'm trying not to be insensitive, because I can only imagine how difficult it would be to lose someone close in that manner, but I just don't see why getting this woman help isn't the best option.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Scaredycrow ().

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Interesting thought, but I think while it may be something to consider, even if any sort of murder/violence gene is proven to exist, it wouldn't necessarily diminish their mental capacity.
      If somebody is biologically predisposed to commit violence, they'd have more difficulty refraining from those violent tendencies. Their mental capacity allowing them to avoid violence would be partially attenuated.

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Suppose a gene exists that makes an individual predisposed to be gay, but they live in a society where being gay was one of the worst crimes one could commit. They would obviously have a much more difficult time suppressing their urges than a straight person
      (I don't in any way mean to imply that homosexuality is bad, it's just an example!)

      And if the gay gene idea doesn't work for people, you could apply the same thing to obesity -- there are genes that predispose individuals to becoming obese, but that doesn't mean that they have no choice or can't learn about the negative effects associated with obesity.
      I'm not suggesting that offenders should be let off the hook based solely on their genetic makeup. But I do think it should be taken into account. Should somebody who is genetically prone to violence suffer the same retribution for murdering his wife as a psychopath who killed his wife because he just felt like it? And actually, we could get into a whole sub-discussion concerning psychopathy, because to an extent, a psychopath's genome abates their ability to feel empathy or remorse.

      In the end, we all have a choice. Even schizophrenics have a choice. But genetics need to be considered during a criminal trial.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by LuklaAdvocate ().

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      Whether they're in jail, in an asylum or in the ground, as long as they're out of society, that's all that matters to me.
      "I've never understood ethnic or national pride, because to me pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth."
      - George Carlin

      Striker88;1062839033 wrote:

      You know why nobody has gotten evidence? God hasn't allowed that and won't.

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Curious about everyone's opinion. Do you think people should have the right to an insanity defence (I just read that it's banned in some places!)? Are some people not criminally responsible due to their state of mind at the time of the crime?

      And, do you think people ever exaggerate their mental state to get a "not guilty" verdict? I've actually heard that it should only be used in extreme cases because being found insane could land you in a hospital for an undetermined amount of time (until you're "better"), rather than a set jail sentence. However, it seems as though the public often seems to see the defence as an "easy way out", of sorts.



      I know the plea is used way less than it's made out to be, but I'm still interested.



      Not guilty by reason of insanity. Give me a break!

       Not in this case.
      A Portland man who strangled his girlfriend, cut off her head, and set her body on fire was convicted yesterday of murder and arson by a judge who rejected the defendant’s insanity defense.
      But Hinckley got away scot free. This is the last sentence in this article:
      The American Medical Association supports the abolition of the insanity defense.


      Should I say again what AMA said so we remember the significance of it?



       There is no such thing as an insanity murder and therefore no insanity defense should exist. You can hear the voices and say genes made me do it but those don’t mix. They are mutually exclusive meaning they have nothing in common. It's a logic thing. But a genetic disposition to violence could mitigate the court sentence. That's another story.



       Isn't "Guilty But Mentally Ill" much more acceptable and more ethical. More fairer . By this verdict a convict allegedly or rightfully guilty of crime goes to the mental asylum and if recovers from a mental illness goes to the jail to do the time, otherwise stays in the asylum forever.


       There are loopholes in the laws and this is one of them. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and consequences.





      Forget the insanity and don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.
      [CENTER][SIZE=3]My screen resolution is 1920 by 1080 pixels.[/SIZE][/CENTER]

      The post was edited 4 times, last by BeThatAsItMay ().

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      If somebody is biologically predisposed to commit violence, they'd have more difficulty refraining from those violent tendencies. Their mental capacity allowing them to avoid violence would be partially attenuated.

      I'm not suggesting that offenders should be let off the hook based solely on their genetic makeup. But I do think it should be taken into account. Should somebody who is genetically prone to violence suffer the same retribution for murdering his wife as a psychopath who killed his wife because he just felt like it? And actually, we could get into a whole sub-discussion concerning psychopathy, because to an extent, a psychopath's genome abates their ability to feel empathy or remorse.

      In the end, we all have a choice. Even schizophrenics have a choice. But genetics need to be considered during a criminal trial.

      Even so, knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to ignore it is still different than being unable to tell the difference at all.

      I'm just not sure how retribution would change to accommodate for genetics - would the be considered more dangerous to society and get a stiffer sentence, or a lighter sentence because they couldn't help themselves? Would there be a new type of sentencing?

      If genetics start becoming more highly considered, I think maybe I'd like to see more of a change in the way jails are run or the way people are rehabilitated (I don't know how it would be done, only that our current system probably be improved in that respect). Just something more than simply holding them less criminally responsible during trial -- I suppose I agree that it should be considered, but it depends on what would happen after the trial as to whether or not I'd be supportive.




      I'm just a little leery of the genetic thing, considering all the hullaballoo about "Genes x Environment" nowadays -- even if genetics do determine certain behavioural or emotional traits, it's unlikely that they would be the sole force behind that. Suppose we pinpoint specific sequences that make an individual prone to violent tendencies: do we track individuals who are born with that gene? Remove them from environments or parents that could potentially promote more aggression? Try to find a "cure"? It has serious implications even outside the legal system! :o

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      Danny wrote:

      What if they're insane and can't help themselves?


      What are you talking about they can't help themselves? I was manipulated by an insane person on the internet for about three months until two weeks ago.
      I give cam shows every now and then, but I MUST know you and be comfortable with you before I will do them for you! If interested, contact me and get to know me!

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Even so, knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to ignore it is still different than being unable to tell the difference at all.
      That's true. But what's the point of knowing right from wrong if you're genetically impinged to not care? Somebody might know the difference between the two, but are still unable to feel empathy, owing partially to their genetics. In this case, should we be making such a liberal distinction between those who cannot tell right from wrong and those who are genetically incapable of caring whether or not their actions are right or wrong?

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      I'm just not sure how retribution would change to accommodate for genetics - would the be considered more dangerous to society and get a stiffer sentence, or a lighter sentence because they couldn't help themselves? Would there be a new type of sentencing?
      I'm afraid I don't have the answer; it's a huge debate even amongst lawyers. My initial reaction would be to put them in a psychiatric hospital. But in end, you can trace almost anything back to genetics, so it's difficult to know where the line should be drawn.

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Just something more than simply holding them less criminally responsible during trial -- I suppose I agree that it should be considered, but it depends on what would happen after the trial as to whether or not I'd be supportive.
      Except that's a separate issue, to a degree. You can't determine a defendants criminal responsibility based on how he or she will serve their sentence.

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      I'm just a little leery of the genetic thing, considering all the hullaballoo about "Genes x Environment" nowadays -- even if genetics do determine certain behavioural or emotional traits, it's unlikely that they would be the sole force behind that.
      Oh, I don't believe genetics to be the sole source of behavioral issues. It's a mixture of nature and nurture.
      But it is part of it, and is therefore relevant.

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Suppose we pinpoint specific sequences that make an individual prone to violent tendencies: do we track individuals who are born with that gene? Remove them from environments or parents that could potentially promote more aggression? Try to find a "cure"? It has serious implications even outside the legal system!
      The potential ramifications can be dangerous, I know. With that being said, is it right to ignore a person's mental state of mind in trial to avoid to avoid those ramifications?
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      That's true. But what's the point of knowing right from wrong if you're genetically impinged to not care?
      Somebody might know the difference between the two, but are still unable to feel empathy, owing partially to their genetics. In this case, should we be making such a liberal distinction between those who cannot tell right from wrong and those who are genetically incapable of caring whether or not their actions are right or wrong?

      I guess this is where the line gets blurry. I'm actually curious as to whether a predisposition to violence would be heavily genetically linked to a lack of empathy, or if they're separate and just dangerous when combined. At any rate, it does lend to your argument. But since there's such a varying degree of "strength" of both of those traits (combined with varying degrees of numerous other traits that I'm sure would also have an impact on someone's likelihood to commit violence), it would have to be on a case-by-case basis - I guess, similar to the way the insanity defence already works! Now, we just have to find out to what degree a particular individual is influenced by all these different things... :D


      I'm afraid I don't have the answer; it's a huge debate even amongst lawyers. My initial reaction would be to put them in a psychiatric hospital. But in end, you can trace almost anything back to genetics, so it's difficult to know where the line should be drawn.

      Oh, I don't believe genetics to be the sole source of behavioral issues. It's a mixture of nature and nurture.
      But it is part of it, and is therefore relevant.
      The potential ramifications can be dangerous, I know. With that being said, is it right to ignore a person's mental state of mind in trial to avoid to avoid those ramifications?

      I quoted this all together because I think I actually agree with you for the most part, aside from the fact that I'm a little confused (you're not confusing, the issue is). :p I agree that it's relevant and an issue to be considered, I'm just not yet sure what types of changes to make or how we would make them.

      Except that's a separate issue, to a degree. You can't determine a defendants criminal responsibility based on how he or she will serve their sentence.

      If I understand you correctly, it's the opposite, right? You determine a defendants sentence based on their criminal responsibility.

      Assuming I've got this straight, I meant it that way but just phrased it awkwardly. For example, say someone is found not criminally responsible in part due to their genetics - I'd hope that retribution would include some kind of rehabilitation program specifically targeted for this type of thing, not just a lighter or heavier sentence.

    • Re: Insanity Defense

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Now, we just have to find out to what degree a particular individual is influenced by all these different things... :D
      Yeah...back to square one...great :p

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      If I understand you correctly, it's the opposite, right? You determine a defendants sentence based on their criminal responsibility.
      Right.

      Scaredycrow wrote:

      Assuming I've got this straight, I meant it that way but just phrased it awkwardly. For example, say someone is found not criminally responsible in part due to their genetics - I'd hope that retribution would include some kind of rehabilitation program specifically targeted for this type of thing, not just a lighter or heavier sentence.
      In theory, that's what prison is supposed to be about in the first place: rehabilitation. But much of society just sees it as punishment. But yes, I would hope it would be rehabilitation too.

      Rehabilitation by itself is an intriguing topic anyways. For the sake of argument, let's say somebody was just convicted for the first degree murder of several children. You have two options. You can either throw them in prison for life, or let them free owing to a new technology that will instantaneously rehabilitate them and negate their danger to society. So, do you choose punishment by placing them in prison, or would you release them back into society knowing they are no longer a threat?
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]