The insanity defense

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
I've never really gotten this. It sometimes speaks to us, but really, why are some people excused of a crime for having a disease like schizophrenia, and others not excused for having antisocial disorder? Isn't it true that just about every crime could be technically derived from some disorder or another?

The insanity defense just isn't philosophically consistant with itself, because it treats some disorders as special and others not. Many crimes are caused in part by depression, for instance, but Andrea Yates is the only one released for having post-partem depression. It just doesn't make sense.

And if its true that crime is mostly caused by certain disorders, shouldn't the whole criminal justice system itself sort that out in itself, and not excuse some people it just considers special?
 
A mental illness is something that causes harm to oneself and interrupts your flow of life.

Not to others. Then it wouldn't be an illness.
 
THREAD HIJACK


lets play a game of never have I ever... shots mandatory . . honor code people.

never have i ever drank a whole can of dr pepper.
 
Damn strait, that shit tastes nasty! There are three kinds of pop that I don't like: Pepper, Pibb and 7-Up (the third being unrelated to the other flavors, of course).
 
If the US still uses a variation on the M'Naghten (various spellings) Rules then yes, it's confusing. It's long been criticised in jurisdictions where it's used (English common law jurisdictions). Unfortunately legislatures seem to be unable to come to grips with it's faults.

The reason it might be confusing is that it acts to remove the mental element from an offence along the lines of if a defendant didn't appreciate the true nature of his or her act then they are not guilty (but will be binned in a mental institution so they don't usually walk).
 
There's different degress of sanity/insanity. That being said, if one has shown the aptitude to be so "insane" as to kill another person in cold blood, or to maim, rape, abuse... then one should be looked at with a weary eye.
 
Beefy said:
There's different degress of sanity/insanity. That being said, if one has shown the aptitude to be so "insane" as to kill another person in cold blood, or to maim, rape, abuse... then one should be looked at with a weary eye.
Click to expand...

I think - not being a shrink - that there are different forms of mental illness. Some of those forms are so severe that they interfere with an individual's perception of reality. I've spoken to murderers, assaultists, rapists and sex abusers who weren't suffering from any known mental illness (I said I'm no shrink but I know some of those individuals were sociopaths or suffering from personality disorders) but their acts were voluntary and not amendable to an insanity plea. Those individuals I spoke to got locked up. And prison is where they belong.
 
Watermark said:
I've never really gotten this. It sometimes speaks to us, but really, why are some people excused of a crime for having a disease like schizophrenia, and others not excused for having antisocial disorder? Isn't it true that just about every crime could be technically derived from some disorder or another?

The insanity defense just isn't philosophically consistant with itself, because it treats some disorders as special and others not. Many crimes are caused in part by depression, for instance, but Andrea Yates is the only one released for having post-partem depression. It just doesn't make sense.

And if its true that crime is mostly caused by certain disorders, shouldn't the whole criminal justice system itself sort that out in itself, and not excuse some people it just considers special?
Click to expand...

Different states have different rules, but the insanity defense derives from the requirement that for a crime to be committed you must 1) have had intent to commit the crime and 2) taken an action to further that crime. If you have a mental illness that prevents you from understanding right from wrong or having the inabiliity to diferentate that distinction you are often considered legally insane and thus not criminally liable for your actions as you did not have the capacity to formulate the intent to commit a crime.
 
I have always thought it should be, Guilty by reason of insanity, that distinction carrying with it a different sentencing structure based on treatment rehabilitation and safety for society at large, instead of punishment.
 
Ah, so just "legally", but in every other instance it is.

"Legally" it isn't because of the illegality of the substance. It would be wrong to force an employer, for instance, to pay for the rehabilitation of those who are committing felonies. It is not a felony to drink beer.
 
But it is a felony to drive drunk.
But they do not fire you over it unless a Drivers liscence is required for your job.
 
Remember that "insanity" is a legal term, not a clinical one, and legal definitions are always somewhat arbitrary.

Not all divergent behavior is due to pathological mental states. Sure, there are lots of gray areas where some psychologists would say yay and others nay. That's true even in traditional medicine though.

Schizophrenia is an easy one since it can be absolutely linked to a specific, strongly aberrant condition of brain chemistry. So too can bi-polar disorder and, to a lesser extent, OCD. Social anxiety disorder, however, is much more controversial, I believe.

Homosexuality was once considered an emotional disorder. It is not and there's no longer any serious question on the issue. I believe that the scientific community eventually comes to the right consensus on these things: you get the oddly muddied waters mostly around newly minted conditions.

On that basis, I'm afraid that I can't usually get behind the notion of using new and controversial conditions in an insanity defense.
 
My bad then I was under the impression that alcohiolism was the only addiction that was considered a disease.
Other than perhaps the obesity/food addiction.
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top