Problems with the "insanity" plea.

[OldWiseGuy]

A person pleads 'innocence by reason of insanity' when they kill another person.

Would that person have killed another if they weren't insane?

If not the insane 'person' must be held accountable if the same person, if sane, would not have committed the act.

Another question. If the insane person "didn't know what they were doing", how and why were they able to do it?

Very confusing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

FWIW, and just in general, I believe the insanity plea is viable.

It's kind of like a crime of passion, when the guy shoots the man in bed with his wife. Most can actually empathize the man doing the shooting was at least temporarily insane.

But it's also true insanity can get a lot more complicated and the plea is often used unfairly as a tool, but I see no grounds at all to do away with it. Most all law is used wrongly at one point or another, but we still keep it around.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Another question. If the insane person "didn't know what they were doing", how and why were they able to do it?

I had one instance in my life where I blacked out and had zero recollection of what I did, so, FWIW, that can happen. I didn't know what I was doing but I did do it.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

A person pleads 'innocence by reason of insanity' when they kill another person.

Would that person have killed another if they weren't insane?

If not the insane 'person' must be held accountable if the same person, if sane, would not have committed the act.

Another question. If the insane person "didn't know what they were doing", how and why were they able to do it?

Very confusing.

All sin is insanity, so all criminals are insane, but they are also responsible for their actions.

Will God allow for the insanity defense on the last day?

 

[bhsmte]

A person pleads 'innocence by reason of insanity' when they kill another person.

Would that person have killed another if they weren't insane?

If not the insane 'person' must be held accountable if the same person, if sane, would not have committed the act.

Another question. If the insane person "didn't know what they were doing", how and why were they able to do it?

Very confusing.

Most people accept that murder is wrong, correct. If someone is truly insane, they are claiming a psychological issue, did not allow them to realize what they did was wrong and or, they had a temporary overwhelming impulse, to perform an act they knew was wrong.

Being able to prove someone is legally insane in a court room, is not an easy task.

 

[Rubiks]

I do not believe it is a valid defense. A murderer is still a murderer, regardless of whether that person is insane or not. Punishing criminals is not the only point of the law.

 

[Rubiks]

Most people accept that murder is wrong, correct. If someone is truly insane, they are claiming a psychological issue, did not allow them to realize what they did was wrong and or, they had a temporary overwhelming impulse, to perform an act they knew was wrong.

Being able to prove someone is legally insane in a court room, is not an easy task.

I think a person who has an impulse to commit violent actions and acts upon them should still be labeled a criminal. Do you?

 

[bhsmte]

I think a person who has an impulse to commit violent actions and acts upon them should still be labeled a criminal. Do you?

It depends on the circumstances and that person's well reviewed psychological state. While it is true they committed a homicide, unique circumstances that impact them psychologically, can excuse them from the act. Again, it can happen, but difficult to prove.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That begs the question: Who is more dangerous?

One who kills deliberately in cold blood?

Or one who blindly and unconsciously kills in a fit of anger or confusion?

Which one should face the death penalty, or should both?

 

[Tanj]

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but thought this wikipedia statement was interesting:

Exemption from full criminal punishment on such grounds dates back to at least the Code of Hammurabi

Said code dates to 1745 BC.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A person pleads 'innocence by reason of insanity' when they kill another person.

Perhaps a minor point, but the plea is 'not guilty'.

Some more historical perspective on the M'Naghton rules, which have been influential in UK and US law.

"that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps a minor point, but the plea is 'not guilty'.

Some more historical perspective on the M'Naghton rules, which have been influential in UK and US law.

"that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

It's twisted logic. Insanity would be the reason for the crime, not an excuse for it. And following that logic are 'sane' criminals who later repent and are rehabilitated no less worthy of the same defense.

"Your honor, my client was in a criminal state of mind when he committed this crime. He has since come to his senses, and is sorry, therefore we ask that he be found innocent."

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's twisted logic. Insanity would be the reason for the crime, not an excuse for it. And following that logic are 'sane' criminals who later repent and are rehabilitated no less worthy of the same defense.

"Your honor, my client was in a criminal state of mind when he committed this crime. He has since come to his senses, and is sorry, therefore we ask that he be found innocent."

But that is practically never the case. Even if found "not guilty due to insanity". The person is almost always locked up in a mental institution. He, or she, has shown himself to be a serious threat to himself or others and is usually institutionalized indefinitely. An insanity plea may lead to a longer term of being locked up than a finding of being guilty.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But that is practically never the case. Even if found "not guilty due to insanity". The person is almost always locked up in a mental institution. He, or she, has shown himself to be a serious threat to himself or others and is usually institutionalized indefinitely. An insanity plea may lead to a longer term of being locked up than a finding of being guilty.

That's the only redeeming aspect of the plea, however it spares these nuts from the death penalty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the only redeeming aspect of the plea, however it spares these nuts from the death penalty.

The death penalty is all but dead anyway. Personally I think that it is abused more than used.