• 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?

Pinkie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
12,316
Reaction score
3,220
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Most people -- including jurors -- seem to hate the insanity plea. I myself hated the diminished capacity defense, a close cousin. About 20 states have a "guilty but insane" verdict, which seems to be more palatable to some.

Temporary insanity and diminished capacity verdicts could get a defendant off altogether or found guilty only of a much reduced charge -- but he'd still go to prison. Insanity defenses and guilty but insane verdicts get a defendant sent to a forensic mental hospital....a sort of place I personally fear much more than prison.

It seems undeniable some defendants are out of their minds, but "insanity" is not a medical term. I think Jeffery Dahmer and Aileen Wuornos were likely medically classified as mentally ill, and should have gotten such verdicts....on the other hand, after what they did (especially Dahmer), it's not easy to care .

What say you? Eliminate these defenses?
 
Guilty by reason of insanity, problem solved.
 
I do not think so:(
 
Guilty by reason of insanity, problem solved.

Yes - the 'not guilty' throws people into a tizzy when they think that someone's just walking out of jail the next day when they're a nut.

Look - the 'guilty - sanity' plea is leaned on a lot - but not often actually ruled for. In order to qualify one has to be deemed unable to stand trial (or so on) and that hardly ever happens.

When it does happen it's usually cases where the accused is so off their rocker it's amazing theyv'e survived so far.
 
Most people -- including jurors -- seem to hate the insanity plea. I myself hated the diminished capacity defense, a close cousin. About 20 states have a "guilty but insane" verdict, which seems to be more palatable to some.

Temporary insanity and diminished capacity verdicts could get a defendant off altogether or found guilty only of a much reduced charge -- but he'd still go to prison. Insanity defenses and guilty but insane verdicts get a defendant sent to a forensic mental hospital....a sort of place I personally fear much more than prison.

It seems undeniable some defendants are out of their minds, but "insanity" is not a medical term. I think Jeffery Dahmer and Aileen Wuornos were likely medically classified as mentally ill, and should have gotten such verdicts....on the other hand, after what they did (especially Dahmer), it's not easy to care .

What say you? Eliminate these defenses?

Mental instability should not be a defense seeing it does not change the fact that someone committed a crime and therefore must pay for that crime.
 
Mental instability should not be a defense seeing it does not change the fact that someone committed a crime and therefore must pay for that crime.

If they don't understand why they're being punished, what's the point?
 
If someone insane commits a crime as a result of their insanity, then they need treatment, not punishment. Taking vengeance on someone for something outside their control is wrong. It might well be different in the USA, but being committed to a hospital for the criminally insane here usually results in a longer sentence.
 
If someone insane commits a crime as a result of their insanity, then they need treatment, not punishment. Taking vengeance on someone for something outside their control is wrong. It might well be different in the USA, but being committed to a hospital for the criminally insane here usually results in a longer sentence.

Let's break it up into the two cases of those who claim insanity. They're either truly insane or they're not. If they're not, then they are using it as a cheap ticket to try and get off the hook. Those are scum who need to be punished even more harshly. In the case of actual insanity, I don't believe you can cure it; no treatment will help. Therefore, in either case, I believe the offender needs to be locked up or put to death for the protection of others.
 
Little known fact: on average, people found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect spend more time institutionalized than those who receive criminal sentences and often enjoy fewer privileges during their time.
 
CDAs will have none of that...you would be taking a piece of thier BS storie weaving ability away.
Most rich and powerful people...uses that defense....

Marlon Brando' son, Michael Blake <bereta> Phil Spectre just to name a few...and If the crime isnt severe enough for an Insanity Defense then they use I have a problem Not my fault Defense waaaaaaaaaaaa......I use drugs I have to go to rehab....Im an alcoholic...and on and on.
Its all part of criminal defense lawyers fabricating bullchit stories to get their clients off....they call it a vigorous defense....
 
If they don't understand why they're being punished, what's the point?

To protect society. Best point of all.

Little known fact: on average, people found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect spend more time institutionalized than those 5who receive criminal sentences and often enjoy fewer privileges during their time.

Link?
 
Last edited:
Let's break it up into the two cases of those who claim insanity. They're either truly insane or they're not. If they're not, then they are using it as a cheap ticket to try and get off the hook. Those are scum who need to be punished even more harshly. In the case of actual insanity, I don't believe you can cure it; no treatment will help. Therefore, in either case, I believe the offender needs to be locked up or put to death for the protection of others.

However, the cases where the sane pleads insanity is actually very rare, contrary to public opinion. Only 1% of all criminal cases in the US has an insanity plea, and the process of discerning the sane from insane are very strict.

Also, the idea of abolishing the insanity plea is ridiculous. For the truly insane, they can't help it. It's not in part of their free will, it's rather on part of their illness, which is not criminal and is not their fault. I agree with the part about putting them into a mental institution with heavy security, but killing them or putting them into prison is absurd
 
One of the best movies of all time - "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKCOO'S NEST" with Jack Nicholson.

Perfect example of Insane Hospitols?
 
Last edited:
One of the best movies of all time - "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKCOO'S NEST" with Jack Nicholson.

Perfect example of Insane Hospitols?

No, they don't look like that at all. Not since the 30s and 40s.

A lot of what has been pointed out about the insanity defense is true. Those who attempt abuse it seldom succeed, and those who use it (because they actually are insane) are put into a protected treatment, where they can't leave until a judge says they're rehabilitated. Not only does that almost never happen sooner than a prison sentence would have concluded, but it often doesn't happen at all. Pleading insanity is not a route to freedom. It's a route to treatment, which is what that person needs.
 
However, the cases where the sane pleads insanity is actually very rare, contrary to public opinion. Only 1% of all criminal cases in the US has an insanity plea, and the process of discerning the sane from insane are very strict.

Also, the idea of abolishing the insanity plea is ridiculous. For the truly insane, they can't help it. It's not in part of their free will, it's rather on part of their illness, which is not criminal and is not their fault. I agree with the part about putting them into a mental institution with heavy security, but killing them or putting them into prison is absurd

What matters is not how often it is used, but what percentage of the time it is actually valid when used.
 
What matters is not how often it is used, but what percentage of the time it is actually valid when used.

What matters is that the appropriate response is made. Killing the mentally ill is not appropriate.
 
Little known fact: on average, people found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect spend more time institutionalized than those who receive criminal sentences and often enjoy fewer privileges during their time.

But who gets the most drugs?
 
I think the insanity plea is abused and everyone tries to get evaluated as an easy way into a lesser sentence. I am not for ending the insanity plea, but I am for reforming it so that it cannot be easily abused.
 
I think the insanity plea is abused and everyone tries to get evaluated as an easy way into a lesser sentence. I am not for ending the insanity plea, but I am for reforming it so that it cannot be easily abused.

If it consoles you, the insanity plea only succeeds about 1% of the time, here in the US.
 
What matters is that the appropriate response is made. Killing the mentally ill is not appropriate.

Personally, I feel that if they murdered someone than it is appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom