• 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?

I don't think we should end it, but I do believe that the trial of anyone choosing to plead insanity should be very different than a normal case. The trial should not be about whether the individual committed the act. The insanity defense should be required to contain a stipulation that the individual DID, in fact commit the crime of which they are charged. Instead the trial should focus on whether or not the individual is a permanent threat to society or only an occasional threat to society. If found to be an occasional threat to society, the individual should be institutionalized for life. If found to be a permanent threat, they should be immediately executed.
 
I don't think we should end it, but I do believe that the trial of anyone choosing to plead insanity should be very different than a normal case. The trial should not be about whether the individual committed the act. The insanity defense should be required to contain a stipulation that the individual DID, in fact commit the crime of which they are charged.

This is already the case. That's why so few defendants try for it-- it's a major risk.

Instead the trial should focus on whether or not the individual is a permanent threat to society or only an occasional threat to society. If found to be an occasional threat to society, the individual should be institutionalized for life. If found to be a permanent threat, they should be immediately executed.

I'm not far from this position myself. I apply the same metric to all criminal cases: if the source of their criminality is curable, it should be cured. If their criminal behavior is incurable, they should either be studied from within a secure treatment facility or they should be euthanized.
 
This is already the case. That's why so few defendants try for it-- it's a major risk.

Thank you for mentioning that. I hadn't been aware of that fact.


I'm not far from this position myself. I apply the same metric to all criminal cases: if the source of their criminality is curable, it should be cured. If their criminal behavior is incurable, they should either be studied from within a secure treatment facility or they should be euthanized.

Criminal behavior is not curable. Once one has committed a crime, it cannot be undone and the individual will always be a criminal. Criminals should be locked up for society's betterment. Those who cannot be reasonably housed (meaning, in a facility like Alcatraz), or who have been violent, should be executed.
 
If it consoles you, the insanity plea only succeeds about 1% of the time, here in the US.

Your right but you worded it wrong I believe....the insanity plea is USED 1% of the time in the USA....
 
Your right but you worded it wrong I believe....the insanity plea is USED 1% of the time in the USA....

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.
 
Criminal behavior is not curable. Once one has committed a crime, it cannot be undone and the individual will always be a criminal.

Then we're all criminals and we all might as well brew up the Kool-Aid.

Criminals should be locked up for society's betterment. Those who cannot be reasonably housed (meaning, in a facility like Alcatraz), or who have been violent, should be executed.

Oh, I certainly agree. But if we destroyed every single person that got caught up in some kind of criminal activity, it would be a tremendous waste of human potential.
 
If they don't understand why they're being punished,

That is not a defense either. It still does not change the fact the criminal murdered,raped or what ever to their victim.


what's the point?

The point is to make them pay for their crimes that they committed against their victims and to somewhat satisfy the victims of that criminal and their loved ones that the criminal is being adequately punished. It doesn't matter if the murderer(I could be wrong but I do not think I have ever heard of a shoplifter,jay walker, convenient store/bank robber,software pirate or some other criminal use the Insanity plea) or some piece of **** quack says the murderer is insane or can't understand the charges brought against them. If society does not punish criminals then it will be in society's interest to take the law into their own hands and administer punishment instead of letting a court handle it.
 
I think the insanity plea, like the death penalty, is overused. Like the death penalty, it should still be there for certain cases. If a person is truly so out there that they just don't get it, then I think it's valid. We need better ways to discriminate to prevent the abuses.
 
You don't beat rabid dogs. And no amount of beating is going to knock the rabies out of them.
 
I think the insanity plea, like the death penalty, is overused. Like the death penalty, it should still be there for certain cases. If a person is truly so out there that they just don't get it, then I think it's valid. We need better ways to discriminate to prevent the abuses.

It's tried in less than 1% of cases and successful in less than one-third of the time it is tried. It's not over-used, it's over-publicized.
 
That is not a defense either. It still does not change the fact the criminal murdered,raped or what ever to their victim.


The point is to make them pay for their crimes that they committed against their victims and to somewhat satisfy the victims of that criminal and their loved ones that the criminal is being adequately punished. It doesn't matter if the murderer(I could be wrong but I do not think I have ever heard of a shoplifter,jay walker, convenient store/bank robber,software pirate or some other criminal use the Insanity plea) or some piece of **** quack says the murderer is insane or can't understand the charges brought against them.

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.

If society does not punish criminals then it will be in society's interest to take the law into their own hands and administer punishment instead of letting a court handle 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.
 
Then we're all criminals and we all might as well brew up the Kool-Aid.

Are you suggesting that you have a guilty conscience, Viktyr? I most certainly don't.

Oh, I certainly agree. But if we destroyed every single person that got caught up in some kind of criminal activity, it would be a tremendous waste of human potential.

I'm not suggesting to kill them all. I am suggesting to kill the violent, anti-social ones and to lock the other ones up for the rest of eternity.


You don't beat rabid dogs. And no amount of beating is going to knock the rabies out of them.

Exactly. No amount of "punishment" is going to cure the violently criminal and insane; so we should do with them what we do with their rabid cousins.... Put them down, immediately.
 
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.

No. The criminal requires PUNISHMENT, not treatment.
 
Are you suggesting that you have a guilty conscience, Viktyr? I most certainly don't.

You should read Three Felonies a Day. Our legal code is so convoluted, that even with a legal degree or good understanding of the law, you probably break the law on a regular basis. Often without even knowing what you did, just like the criminally insane.

Exactly. No amount of "punishment" is going to cure the violently criminal and insane; so we should do with them what we do with their rabid cousins.... Put them down, immediately.

Many can be treated. Also, they may be sick, but they're still people.

No. The criminal requires PUNISHMENT, not treatment .

If they don't understand what they did, why?
 
No. The criminal requires PUNISHMENT, not treatment.

This is vengence, nothing more. If the person who committed the crime was so out of his gourd he couldn't form the intent to harm, this satisfies nothing but a blood lust.

Unless you happen to think mental illnesses just don't exist.
 
You should read Three Felonies a Day. Our legal code is so convoluted, that even with a legal degree or good understanding of the law, you probably break the law on a regular basis. Often without even knowing what you did, just like the criminally insane.

I may just add that to my reading list.

Many can be treated. Also, they may be sick, but they're still people.

At whose expense? Do they have the money to pay for their treatment? You seem to place a much higher value on human beings than I do. Especially ones who cannot or will not live within society's standards and rules

If they don't understand what they did, why?

If they are incapable of understanding the standards and rules of society, nevermind living within them, then I see no use for them in society to begin with. Better that they be locked away or disposed of for society's betterment than that they continue to roam the streets degrading the quality of life for society as a whole.
 
This is vengence, nothing more. If the person who committed the crime was so out of his gourd he couldn't form the intent to harm, this satisfies nothing but a blood lust.

Unless you happen to think mental illnesses just don't exist.

Mental illmess most definitely does exist. Of that I have no doubt, and personal experience. It's what that individual DOES that makes the difference. I've been mildly to seriously depressed for probably the last quarter century. I'm a gun owner, and a collector of weapons by hobby and interest. I shoot firearms competitively. I have had more than sufficient means, motive, and opportunity to commit crimes over that time, yet I have not done so. You know why? Because I was taught better than that. I was raised to believe in the rule of law. Now, if I were to lose the control on myself and to commit some heinous act, then I would suggest that I SHOULD be killed for doing so, because once those bonds of control are lost, they can never be fully put back in place.
 
No, because some people actually are insane to the point where they can't distinguish right from wrong or control their actions. They need to be in treatment in secure mental institutions where they can't harm the public and where they can get treatment.

The insanity defense is also misunderstood. There's a difference between criminal insanity and mental illness. They're not one and the same. Someone is criminally insane if his mental illness prevents him from understanding the difference between legal right and wrong. Not any person with some mental illness can use it.

Mental illmess most definitely does exist. Of that I have no doubt, and personal experience. It's what that individual DOES that makes the difference. I've been mildly to seriously depressed for probably the last quarter century. I'm a gun owner, and a collector of weapons by hobby and interest. I shoot firearms competitively. I have had more than sufficient means, motive, and opportunity to commit crimes over that time, yet I have not done so. You know why? Because I was taught better than that. I was raised to believe in the rule of law. Now, if I were to lose the control on myself and to commit some heinous act, then I would suggest that I SHOULD be killed for doing so, because once those bonds of control are lost, they can never be fully put back in place.

Depression is not the same thing as being criminally insane. See above.
 
Last edited:
No, because some people actually are insane to the point where they can't distinguish right from wrong or control their actions. They need to be in treatment in secure mental institutions where they can't harm the public and where they can get treatment.

The insanity defense is also misunderstood. There's a difference between criminal insanity and mental illness. They're not one and the same. Someone is criminally insane if his mental illness prevents him from understanding the difference between legal right and wrong. Not any person with some mental illness can use it.

If they are to the point where they cannot understand the difference between Right and Wrong, they need not be a member of society, or the human race, any longer than it takes to put a bullet in the back of their head.
 
If they are to the point where they cannot understand the difference between Right and Wrong, they need not be a member of society, or the human race, any longer than it takes to put a bullet in the back of their head.

You need to change your lean from "very conservative" to "fascist."
 
If they are to the point where they cannot understand the difference between Right and Wrong, they need not be a member of society, or the human race, any longer than it takes to put a bullet in the back of their head.

I know we've hashed this over before - and you're unwaivering in your view, we're unwaivering in ours. It's a moot debate,really.
 
You need to change your lean from "very conservative" to "fascist."

"Authoritarian" would actually be the proper term, but it wasn't available on the list.


I know we've hashed this over before - and you're unwaivering in your view, we're unwaivering in ours. It's a moot debate,really.

I don't debate. It's a moot discussion. I'm perfectly comfortable standing before my Maker with my life. Can you say the same? If so, great.
 
At whose expense? Do they have the money to pay for their treatment? You seem to place a much higher value on human beings than I do. Especially ones who cannot or will not live within society's standards and rules


If they are incapable of understanding the standards and rules of society, nevermind living within them, then I see no use for them in society to begin with. Better that they be locked away or disposed of for society's betterment than that they continue to roam the streets degrading the quality of life for society as a whole.

I'm perfectly fine with institutionalizing them if they are a danger to others, but a person is a person.
 
Back
Top Bottom