The insanity defense

Ah, at last something I know fairly well. I spent four years working in the prison system with a population of about 40% or so psychiatric patients. It was interesting, paid the bills while I finished two degrees, and helped me determine the direction of my professional life (ie. that I did not want to be a clinician!). And the NGRI defense was one of the assignments I undertook as a project for one of my graduate classes. I had to give a three hour lecture on this topic, in fact.

As we'd expect, Jarod gave a good description of the insanity defense criteria, and Ornot added to it. It isn't necessary that the accused person be diagnosed with a specific psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder (formerly called manic depressive disorder), one of the various personality disorders, or (mustn't forget this one) mental retardation, in order to be adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity. Such a diagnosis most certainly would give strength to the defense's case in this regard, but bear in mind that most people so diagnosed do not commit crimes.

Usually the crime has to be pretty serious in order for this defense to be raised. It is otherwise quite damaging to the person's lifelong record and also is fairly expensive to establish. Basically, the defense consists of the assertion that the defendant was incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong or of appreciating the consequences of his/her act(s), either to him/herself or the victim.

If the NGRI defense is successful then it is customary for the person to be committed to an institution for the criminally insane. Regulations vary from state to state, but basically there are stipulations that the person's psychiatric state must be re-evaluated within a certain time period after conviction and then at specified intervals after that time. If the person is judged then to be no longer a threat to either society or himself, then release is arranged. Unlike the " ... Cuckoo's Nest", lobotomies are not performed. Medication may be required, however.
 
Jarod said:
It can be, in Florida if you have three previously convictions or if you seriously injure someone, DUI is a felony.
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why I posted the link to the laws, they state when it becomes a felony. When it reaches that level the chances you will retain your job are minimal because you begin Prison time.
 
uscitizen said:
Depends on your employer.
No legal protection from it.
Click to expand...
The alcohol thing as well. Depends on many things. There is no legal protection from getting fired in many cases for anything at all. Your point was baseless. Most states have no protection from firing you for being alcoholic either.
 
Damocles said:
The alcohol thing as well. Depends on many things. There is no legal protection from getting fired in many cases for anything at all. Your point was baseless. Most states have no protection from firing you for being alcoholic either.
Click to expand...

but some states do have the protection for Alkies Damo. And I think none do for other addiction related problems.
 
uscitizen said:
but some states do have the protection for Alkies Damo. And I think none do for other addiction related problems.
Click to expand...
And some have it for MJ, or Cocaine if you weren't caught in a crime and fessed up beforehand.

You are blowing in the wind and winding up looking uneducated. At least ask questions rather than assume all over the screen and make it all sticky and smelling bad like that.
 
Darn I forgot to add your question marks at the end...
shucks.

sorry just being a poor damo student i guess.
 
Diuretic said:
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).
Click to expand...

The M'Naghten rule is idiotic. It would be very odd for someone to not be able to tell the difference between right and wrong, it's just that their perception of reality would be different.

Under that rule, I don't see how Andrea Yates could be released at all.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

And to say that a mental illness prevents you from understanding right from wrong is a clear ignorance of what a mental illness is.
 
Thorn said:
Ah, at last something I know fairly well. I spent four years working in the prison system with a population of about 40% or so psychiatric patients. It was interesting, paid the bills while I finished two degrees, and helped me determine the direction of my professional life (ie. that I did not want to be a clinician!). And the NGRI defense was one of the assignments I undertook as a project for one of my graduate classes. I had to give a three hour lecture on this topic, in fact.

As we'd expect, Jarod gave a good description of the insanity defense criteria, and Ornot added to it. It isn't necessary that the accused person be diagnosed with a specific psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder (formerly called manic depressive disorder), one of the various personality disorders, or (mustn't forget this one) mental retardation, in order to be adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity. Such a diagnosis most certainly would give strength to the defense's case in this regard, but bear in mind that most people so diagnosed do not commit crimes.

Usually the crime has to be pretty serious in order for this defense to be raised. It is otherwise quite damaging to the person's lifelong record and also is fairly expensive to establish. Basically, the defense consists of the assertion that the defendant was incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong or of appreciating the consequences of his/her act(s), either to him/herself or the victim.

If the NGRI defense is successful then it is customary for the person to be committed to an institution for the criminally insane. Regulations vary from state to state, but basically there are stipulations that the person's psychiatric state must be re-evaluated within a certain time period after conviction and then at specified intervals after that time. If the person is judged then to be no longer a threat to either society or himself, then release is arranged. Unlike the " ... Cuckoo's Nest", lobotomies are not performed. Medication may be required, however.
Click to expand...

The insanity defense isn't something that is often gone after, true. Being declared insane usually leads to lifelong impronment at a mental hopsital, whether or not the person in question is ever cured. The only reason I could think of that most people would use it would be to avoid the barbaric death penalty.
 
Most evil acts are done by people who can't really understand their actions or reality... this is called antisocial disorder. 75% of prisoners have it. It's incurable.
 
Watermark said:
The M'Naghten rule is idiotic. It would be very odd for someone to not be able to tell the difference between right and wrong, it's just that their perception of reality would be different.

Under that rule, I don't see how Andrea Yates could be released at all.
Click to expand...

It's not "idiotic", rather it's archaic. You can read the origins of the rule in the narrative concerning the original crime. There's also an interesting case where a man with a brain tumour tried to beat his son to death because of the effect of the tumour. I'm not familiar with the defence mounted by Yates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top