This made me a little sick.

[Hirschof]

Provided some crazy judge doesn't release him because...

No, he won't. He's done.

[StruckingFuggle]

He isn't going to return to normal society.

Provided some crazy judge doesn't release him because he was "sick" and now he isn't (according to like one doc).

Yeeeaaaaah, good thing we live in the real world, rather than Hollywood or Stock-Political-Arguments-opia.


A couple interesting facts:
1 - the insanity defense shifts the burden of proof over to the defense, who has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their client WAS insane;
and 2 - less than 1% of capital cases will attempt this; and then less than 1% of those who DO will succeed.
3 - "not guilty by way of insanity" may be what they call it (which personally I think is casting it the wrong way, it should be "guilty, but...") - but it's not the same as "not guilty" in that a successful defense usually doesn't mean you go free, or even that being committed is a nice result.

IT. IS. NOT. A. GET. OUT. OF. JAIL. FREE. CARD.

[collegestudent22]

IT. IS. NOT. A. GET. OUT. OF. JAIL. FREE. CARD.

I know that. What I was referring to was the idea that the criminals can be "rehabilitated". Many times this, especially in extremely liberal states like Vermont, for instance, causes judges to give light sentences for the criminals with some kind of class being taken during their probation.

[Martin Blank]

You seem to think that anyone convicted of a crime is automatically a criminal for life, evil to the core, and there is no chance of the person coming around.

There is significant evidence that things like mandatory minimums and the removal of rehabilitation programs is increasing the recidivism rate. When you keep people locked up without providing them something to look forward to on the outside (just not being incarcerated is not enough), they do not improve, and in fact on return to society often find themselves turning to crime just to survive. From 1983 to 1994, the recidivism rate increased by 8%, according to a 15-state study. In that time, there was a trend (that continues still) of removing rehabilitation programs from prisons as a cost-saving measure and forcing minimum sentences on offenders, despite extenuating circumstances that might exist.

[collegestudent22]

You seem to think that anyone convicted of a crime is automatically a criminal for life, evil to the core, and there is no chance of the person coming around.

Only certain crimes. (ie: murder, child abuse, rape, etc.)

When you keep people locked up without providing them something to look forward to on the outside (just not being incarcerated is not enough), they do not improve, and in fact on return to society often find themselves turning to crime just to survive.

Turning to crime to survive? Maybe theft, even drug sales which could go bad, but intentional murder, rape, child abuse...!? Yeah, right.

[Martin Blank]

How many crimes are there that result in prison time, cs22? Now, what percentage of people are incarcerated for those? (I'll give you a hint: a really large percentage of people are in for possession of illegal substances, and nothing more.)

[collegestudent22]

I know that. That is why I was referring to instances like this. I have no problem with a drug addict who has been incarcerated getting out early in order to do rehab (provided that he actually does rehab, many don't but aren't rearrested either) but other criminals, such as murderers like this guy, getting out early (or at all, with multiple murders) in order to be "rehabilitated" is just wrong.

[Martin Blank]

And what makes you qualified to judge this? Is it your extensive study of psychiatry? Perhaps it's your in-depth review of the legal record covering cases like this.

NOBODY gets out early after an act like this for rehabilitation. All rehab for violent offenders takes place in a penal or mental institution. If he's judged to be legally insane, then he's going to be sent to a mental institution for probably somewhere between a decade and the rest of his life. The court systems of the US and even Canada do not treat those who callously take lives with kid gloves.

There are a lot of unknowns here. Perhaps the individual has a carefully-hidden violent past that he could no longer repress. Perhaps he was on medications about which no one knew, and he stopped taking them. Maybe he has a brain tumor that was affecting the workings inside his mind. You seem to be interested only in seeing the harshest possible punishment put into place before he even has time to speak with defense counsel.

Tell me, were you calling for Steven Hatfill to be executed when the FBI all but declared that he was the one that sent the anthrax spores?

[collegestudent22]

You seem to be interested only in seeing the harshest possible punishment put into place before he even has time to speak with defense counsel.

Only if he is found guilty. (which from everything I read, there were multiple witnesses to his crime) In that case, I don't really care if he was crazy or not. If a psychiatrist feels that he needs to try to go visit the guy in jail and put him through some kind of rehab, that's fine by me. I would rather just not have to pay for it.

Tell me, were you calling for Steven Hatfill to be executed when the FBI all but declared that he was the one that sent the anthrax spores?

No. I would have been fine with life in prison, had he been found guilty. However, I never kept up with that so I don't even know how that turned out. Didn't really care about it, besides the fact that I was glad they found a suspect.

[Martin Blank]

So you would put him in prison even if the problem is one of a legitimate mental problem?

[collegestudent22]

Yes, yes I would. I don't feel that the security at a mental hospital would be sufficient and I think that accommodations could be made to get psychiatric visits/solitary confinement for protection/whatever else is necessary while he is serving time for the crime that he did commit. If ignorance of the law is not a defense, why should mental problems be one?

[Arc Orion]

Non sequitur is not a defense.

[adciv]

Ok, I have been somewhat following along with this little argument and I am pretty sure I understand MB's pov and CS22's pov. But Arc, what the HELL are you talking about?

[Arc Orion]

If ignorance of the law is not a defense, why should mental problems be one?

Totally unrelated conditions.

[StruckingFuggle]

Yes, yes I would. I don't feel that the security at a mental hospital would be sufficient

Based on what?

If ignorance of the law is not a defense, why should mental problems be one?

Actually, sometimes it IS a valid legal defense.

But like Arc called you on, how is this relevant? Knowledge, or even ignorance of the law, requires a capacity to understand the law and 'think straight'.