• 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!

Double jeopardy clause bars Georgia from retrying man acquitted by reason of insanity

Safiel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2023
Messages
403
Reaction score
493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right


Link to the unanimous Opinion of the Court by Justice Jackson, with a brief concurrence by Justice Alito, I would note that Alito concurred fully with the main Opinion.

Obviously the correct ruling.

The jury found the defendant/Petitioner McElrath not guilty by reason of insanity of malice murder. However, they simultaneously found him guilty by mentally ill on the felony murder and aggravated assault charges. On appeal the Georgia Supreme Court vacated all three verdicts as repugnant and ordered a retrial on all charges. Obviously, an individual cannot be both insane and sane in the commission of the same act.

The defendant/Petitioner McElrath appealed to the United States Supreme Court that the overturning of the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict on malice murder constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed.

Obviously the correct decision, but there is still unfinished business on remand.

A necessary factual finding in a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict is that the defendant was, indeed, insane at the time of the commission of offense. As this is a determined fact, the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia should dismiss the felony murder and aggravated assault charges with prejudice, as being collaterally estopped because of the existing factual determination of the defendant's insanity.

The defendant should be committed for the mental care he so desperately needs. It is ultimately the fault of the State of Georgia's mental health system for letting him loose in the first place, knowing he constituted a danger to the public due to his severe mental illness.
 
Wouldn't you say the jury got this one right? It's quite plausible to me that a person could be sufficiently insane to commit a murder WITHOUT premeditation, but not so insane that they didn't know murder was wrong. Though I guess the law does not recognize degrees of insanity: a defendant either is, or they're not.

Refusing a retrial is the correct decision, but I agree with the OP that anyone THAT insane probably can't be cured, and henceforth should be hospitalized. He can still appeal that, if his doctors will support that he's cured.
 
Wouldn't you say the jury got this one right? It's quite plausible to me that a person could be sufficiently insane to commit a murder WITHOUT premeditation, but not so insane that they didn't know murder was wrong. Though I guess the law does not recognize degrees of insanity: a defendant either is, or they're not.

Legally, insanity is an all no nothing proposition.

Refusing a retrial is the correct decision, but I agree with the OP that anyone THAT insane probably can't be cured, and henceforth should be hospitalized. He can still appeal that, if his doctors will support that he's cured.

Pretty much zero chance he ever leaves the system. His type of mental illness only gets worse with time.
 
OK, substitute prison for an asylum.

Prison is pointless. The idea of prison is rehabilitation and he cannot be rehabilitated. An asylum where they are capable of handling dangerous mentally ill individuals like himself is the appropriate option.
 
Prison is pointless. The idea of prison is rehabilitation and he cannot be rehabilitated. An asylum where they are capable of handling dangerous mentally ill individuals like himself is the appropriate option.

Perhaps it was at one time and in the mind of some
US prisons are often termed "penitentiaries", where convicts were sent to repent

That is not their function though - they exist to both punish the convict by depriving them of their liberty and the protect society by removing convicts from it

Asylums do have the objective of "curing" inmates though....even though we accept that for the most part it will be a doomed enterprise.
 
Back
Top Bottom