• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should We End The Insanity Plea?

DrunkenAsparagus said:
I'm perfectly fine with institutionalizing them if they are a danger to others, but a person is a person.
Click to expand...

On that we will completely and totally have to disagree. I have never been of the opinion that people have value simply because they draw breath.
 
I think that most perpetrators of violent crime have some degree of insanity. The key to reducing crime is identifying the "seeds" of criminal behavior, and treating it as early as possible. Also, sociopaths cannot be reasoned with, nor is punishment effective. Some people need to be put out of their misery. No amount of "rehabilitation" will help some people.
 
First off, despite the way courtroom dramas portray it the insanity defense very, very, rarely used, and works even less than that. Only about 1% of cases does the defendant raise the insanity defense and it only works in something like 0.05% of cases. So, just keep that in mind. Generally it is only successful when the defendant is really far around the bend and has decades of medical history proving it.

That said, I do have many problems with it.

1) It isn't necessarily a win for the defendant. Criminal mental health facilities are just like, or potentially even worse than, prisons. And, in theory, you are held there until you are cured. There are many situations where a person is arrested for a minor crime- say petty theft- and deemed incompetent to stand trial. Then they are put in a criminal mental health facility. Where petty theft might have only incurred a fine and probation, or maybe a week in jail, they are kept there until they are deemed to be cured, which can be years or even their entire lives. Many respectable lawyers will not raise the insanity defense even if they know they would win it because of this. A lot of cases where it is raised the lawyer is actually trying to game the system. They want to be able to record the case as a "win" and are willing to send their client up the river to do it.

2) It is almost impossible to define insanity in a way that a jury can weigh. So it ends up being applied arbitrarily. For example, "unable to tell the difference between right and wrong" only encompasses a very small slice of insanity and often times does not cover some of the most severe and debilitating conditions.

3) It is hard to justify how it wouldn't apply to everybody that commits really heinous crimes. Somebody who would kill and torture a child for no reason, for example, is clearly insane, but we still want to punish them. So we end up with arbitrary decisions. It isn't a principled distinction.

But, the catch is, I don't know what would be a better solution. If a severely mentally handicapped person steals something from a store because he literally didn't know that it didn't belong to him or even what that means, that isn't really the same thing as somebody who consciously chooses to commit theft. That person does need treatment and doesn't deserve punishment. Part of it comes down to conflicting ideas of the purpose of the law. Is it simply a mechanism for moral retribution for its own sake? Is it to rehabilitate people? It is to simply lock people up so they can't commit crimes while they're locked up? You get different answers about how to handle insanity depending on which philosophy you subscribe too. Probably really it should be a mix of all three approaches.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
If a person has no idea of what they're doing or the consequences, how can they be held morally responsible? The family may want justice, but the criminal requires treatment.
Click to expand...

I could care less if the scumbag alleges he has not idea what they are doing. They still did it, this fact does not change and therefore they must pay for it.


Vigilante justice has a much poorer track record of meting out justice to those who deserve it and not harming the innocent than courts.
Click to expand...

People will resort to vigilante justice if justice is not being done. I am sure most people want a justice system where a unbiased 3rd party hears both sides and passes judgement, however if that unbiased 3rd party does not do its job then this creates a distrust in the ability of that unbiased to adequately do its job.
 
Tigger said:
On that we will completely and totally have to disagree. I have never been of the opinion that people have value simply because they draw breath.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this as I see think the state shouldn't be in the position to determine who is valuable enough to live, like this. I guess we'll have to leave the matter as is.
 
jamesrage said:
I could care less if the scumbag alleges he has not idea what they are doing. They still did it, this fact does not change and therefore they must pay for it.
Click to expand...

Good for you, but it's nothing like the movies. There has to be a mountain of evidence pointing to the fact that the perpetrator truly did not know what they were doing. Even then, "treatment" is probably just as bad as prison.


jamesrage said:
People will resort to vigilante justice if justice is not being done. I am sure most people want a justice system where a unbiased 3rd party hears both sides and passes judgement, however if that unbiased 3rd party does not do its job then this creates a distrust in the ability of that unbiased to adequately do its job.
Click to expand...

And this will almost invariably create worse results than what we have right now or even a worse crimnal justice system. The rule of law is your friend.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I disagree with this as I see think the state shouldn't be in the position to determine who is valuable enough to live, like this. I guess we'll have to leave the matter as is.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I say that as someone who has a physical birth defect that would have been the death of me, moments after my birth, in many times and places in the past.
 
Luna Tick said:
That might be the only thing we ever agree on.
Click to expand...

Probably. And to think I have always had such a high opinion of the logic and common sense of people from the midwest in the past.
 
Tigger said:
Probably. And to think I have always had such a high opinion of the logic and common sense of people from the midwest in the past.
Click to expand...

I find absolutely no logic or common sense in authoritarianism.
 
Luna Tick said:
I find absolutely no logic or common sense in authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

Whereas I find no logic or common sense in giving a voice to people who can't or won't think, speak, or act in an appropriate manner.
 
Tigger said:
Whereas I find no logic or common sense in giving a voice to people who can't or won't think, speak, or act in an appropriate manner.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, you'll have to revoke the Tea Party's right to free expression and to vote.
 
Luna Tick said:
If you believe that, you'll have to revoke the Tea Party's right to free expression and to vote.
Click to expand...

I would revoke the right of somewhere between 80 & 90% of Americans to vote.
 
Tigger said:
I would revoke the right of somewhere between 80 & 90% of Americans to vote.
Click to expand...

This should be your presidential campaign slogan.
 
megaprogman said:
This should be your presidential campaign slogan.
Click to expand...

Why? I don't believe that voting is the right way to make decisions to begin with, so why would I run for any office?
 
Tigger said:
Why? I don't believe that voting is the right way to make decisions to begin with, so why would I run for any office?
Click to expand...
Something tells me if there were a regime not allowing voting for most of the population anymore, you wouldnt be one of the ones left with a vote.
 
SE102 said:
Something tells me if there were a regime not allowing voting for most of the population anymore, you wouldnt be one of the ones left with a vote.
Click to expand...

Neither would I. Doesn't mean he's wrong.
 
I worked in the field of Corrections for the better part of 30 years. I have degrees in Criminal Justice and Psychology. I almost completed my masters in the psychology of addiction. That said, I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. However, their are cases were mental and psychological disorders are at play. Unfortunately, the law for insanity only delineates whether a person can comprehend right from wrong. If anyone believes that anyone believes that a person will get real help in a prison/correctional center for real problems they are mistaken. Hospitals for the criminally insane are only marginally better. In my opinion, the McNaughten rule should be modified so that a realistic diagnosis can be presented at trial and be taken into account. The answer is not to release the individual, but to insure that proper treatment is made available for the inmate. If it a person who would receive a life sentence the best it would accomplish is to create a scenario where it will be easier for the individual, staff, and others during the duration of his sentence. It may even prevent someone else from being killed. For other inmates who will be released it could, and I emphasize the word could, make him more productive upon being released. I do not believe in codling inmate. They need to be held responsible for their actions. I do, however, believe that we/I have a responsibility to provide them with the tools they need in order to change. They are the ones that have to make that decision to do so. And fortunately, I have known some who have.
 
Ok, so what would you do with someone like David Peterson? For those of you who don't know, David was a patient at the Whiting Forensic Institute at Connecticut Valley Hospital in 1989 when he walked away from the facility (apparently "Maximum Security" only means the doors are locked at night) on July 28th, purchased a knife and stabbed a 9 year old little girl named Jessica Short more than 30 times on a sidewalk outside of Woolworth's Department Store on Main Street in my home town (Middletown, CT). He was found mentally unfit to stand trial and has spent the last 22 years at CVH with no improvement in his condition. Yet every two years Jessica's family has to listen to Mr Peterson's counsel request he be moved to a less secure part of the facility. If THAT is not "cruel and unusual punishment" of a family that has already suffered way too much, I'm not sure what is. That piece of **** should have been put down the day after he killed that little girl. I know the mortician who worked on her. His comment was.... "It was like putting a jigsaw puzzle back together." Why should that mother****er be allowed to continue to draw breath? Especially when he ADMITS that his intent was to have the cops kill him.
 
megaprogman said:
Then if thats the case, it is successful less than 1% of the time due to not every insanity plea being accepted by the judge or jury.
Click to expand...

Thats true...only the rich an influential use that defense because its expensive...regular folk only get to use it when its blatant they are looney toons.
 
Tigger said:
Ok, so what would you do with someone like David Peterson? For those of you who don't know, David was a patient at the Whiting Forensic Institute at Connecticut Valley Hospital in 1989 when he walked away from the facility (apparently "Maximum Security" only means the doors are locked at night) on July 28th, purchased a knife and stabbed a 9 year old little girl named Jessica Short more than 30 times on a sidewalk outside of Woolworth's Department Store on Main Street in my home town (Middletown, CT). He was found mentally unfit to stand trial and has spent the last 22 years at CVH with no improvement in his condition. Yet every two years Jessica's family has to listen to Mr Peterson's counsel request he be moved to a less secure part of the facility. If THAT is not "cruel and unusual punishment" of a family that has already suffered way too much, I'm not sure what is. That piece of **** should have been put down the day after he killed that little girl. I know the mortician who worked on her. His comment was.... "It was like putting a jigsaw puzzle back together." Why should that mother****er be allowed to continue to draw breath? Especially when he ADMITS that his intent was to have the cops kill him.
Click to expand...

Chill the **** out, you act like they let him go or something. God Damn....
 
Tigger said:
Ok, so what would you do with someone like David Peterson? For those of you who don't know, David was a patient at the Whiting Forensic Institute at Connecticut Valley Hospital in 1989 when he walked away from the facility (apparently "Maximum Security" only means the doors are locked at night) on July 28th, purchased a knife and stabbed a 9 year old little girl named Jessica Short more than 30 times on a sidewalk outside of Woolworth's Department Store on Main Street in my home town (Middletown, CT). He was found mentally unfit to stand trial and has spent the last 22 years at CVH with no improvement in his condition. Yet every two years Jessica's family has to listen to Mr Peterson's counsel request he be moved to a less secure part of the facility. If THAT is not "cruel and unusual punishment" of a family that has already suffered way too much, I'm not sure what is. That piece of **** should have been put down the day after he killed that little girl. I know the mortician who worked on her. His comment was.... "It was like putting a jigsaw puzzle back together." Why should that mother****er be allowed to continue to draw breath? Especially when he ADMITS that his intent was to have the cops kill him.
Click to expand...

If it was such an easy clear cut case you should instead blame the prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom