Insanity Plea

[Dezaad]

I think that you should read what I wrote again. :2razz:

You wrote "And that is why the definition of Insanity and the Defenseof Insanity are Irrelevant".

You wrote it without a quotation as to what you were referring to, so the context indicates you mean it to refer to the post immediately preceding yours, which is one that I posted:

"But there is a problem here. Moral culbability doesn't depend on what percentage of murderers are insane, even if the percentage is 100 (all murderers). Culpability depends on the definition of insane."

The contextual way to read the exchange would be for you to be referring to my point: "Culpability depends on the definition of insane".

You are not being clear.

In the context of the conversation, what you are saying is:

"Since culpability depends on the definition of insane, the definition of insane is irrelevant."

 

[Flea]

It is clear depending on how your read it, and if you are insane like I am, it makes perfect sense :2razz:

i did not use quotations since it was just you and I talking, but I should have to make surethat I was clear in communicating to you. Let me now clarify:

The definition of Insanity and the Defense of Insanity are Irrelevant when considering culpability, since any person that Murders another, is by default, guilty of nothing other than the Murder Committed since they are already understood to be Insane. "Insanity" in the context of murder should not exist. They are one and the same. The only thing to consider is Intent, and whether they thought they were killing an Angel instead of a person is Irrelevant, whether they were momentarily blacked out is Irrelevant. Nothing is Relevant other than Intent, and whether or not they understand due to sub-conscious pressures or not is Irrelevant. A person can not be absolved of Murder because they do not understand the full scope of their actions.

If I think that I am sticking an Ice Pick in to a block of Ice but it was really a person's head, and they die, I murdered them. Sorry, I just don't care one bit about defining Insanity because I think that it is 100% Irrelevant to the death of the person. Understanding what the Murderer

I have not diea if that helped or not, I was and am writing really fast about the first stuff that comes to mind.

 

[BodiSatva]

Utah, you have echoed my thoughts on this very well...good boy! :lol:

 

[Dezaad]

The only thing to consider is Intent, and whether they thought they were killing an Angel instead of a person is Irrelevant, whether they were momentarily blacked out is Irrelevant. Nothing is Relevant other than Intent, and whether or not they understand due to sub-conscious pressures or not is Irrelevant. A person can not be absolved of Murder because they do not understand the full scope of their actions.

What is their intent? I agree that it is all that matters. Suppose I believe I am inside a cartoon movie video game, and I believe that I am killing Mickey Mouse when I cut off his ears, arms, legs and finally his head. My intent was to play the game and win. I won by killing Mickey Mouse. "I had so much fun, did you see me win??? Did you???" But, as it turns out, I have just dismembered you, and you have died as a result. I can't find my beloved friend Johnny. "Does anyone know where Johnny is? He was just here watching me play this game... Officer!! Do you know where Johnny is? Yes, there was screaming because I was playing the video game. Come in here and see I killed Mickey and won."

If you encountered a person who you believed was this out of touch with reality, who had killed, you would conclude that his intent was to murder?

 

[Flea]

When I tossed in "Intent" I knew that it would create an impression that I did not mean to convey. Intent is too closely related to Murder. It implies to much coherent thinking. I would have highlighted different aspects of my post, like this:

Originally Posted by Johnny_Utah
The only thing to consider is Intent, and whether they thought they were killing an Angel instead of a person is Irrelevant, whether they were momentarily blacked out is Irrelevant. Nothing is Relevant other than Intent, and whether or not they understand due to sub-conscious pressures or not is Irrelevant.

A person can not be absolved of Murder because they do not understand the full scope of their actions.

 

[Dezaad]

When I tossed in "Intent" I knew that it would create an impression that I did not mean to convey. Intent is too closely related to Murder. It implies to much coherent thinking. I would have highlighted different aspects of my post, like this:

<<<snip>>>

A person can not be absolved of Murder because they do not understand the full scope of their actions.

Why? Is it because all killers are equally insane with the person I have described in my post (the one that is so insane the world switches back and forth from a video game to the semi-real), and therefore that somehow magically makes insanity irrelevant?

Making killers, by definition, insane does not change how we evaluate moral culbability. If insanity means that a person has lost their grip on understanding the real world, they are not guilty >>> even if murderers are by definition insane. Making murderers, by definition, insane simply means that all murderers are by definition in a state where they have no understanding of their actions, and therefore all murderers are equally not guilty.

You seem to be under the impression that changing the definition of murderer to mean insane changes whether or not insane means not guilty. It doesn't.

If insane means not guilty, and murder is by definition insane, then all murderers are not guilty.

The definition of murderer, even if it involves making all murderers insane, is irrelevant to whether or not insane means not guilty.

If you ask yourself the question, "Are insane people not guilty?" You don't first determine whether all murderers are insane to answer the question.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Dezaad
Why? Is it because all killers are equally insane with the person I have described in my post (the one that is so insane the world switches back and forth from a video game to the semi-real), and therefore that somehow magically makes insanity irrelevant? No, they are not all equal but the idea of equality in relation to Sanity is Irrelevant, it is the idea of equality in relation to the murder that is relevant.

Making killers, by definition, insane does not change how we evaluate moral culbability. If insanity means that a person has lost their grip on understanding the real world, they are not guilty >>> even if murderers are by definition insane. Making murderers, by definition, insane simply means that all murderers are by definition in a state where they have no understanding of their actions, and therefore all murderers are equally not guilty. That is the current way of looking at it, but that is not the way that I think that it should be

You seem to be under the impression that changing the definition of murderer to mean insane changes whether or not insane means not guilty. It doesn't. I am not under that impression at all. I am saying that Insanity should be tossed out of the equation altogether

If insane means not guilty it doesn't IMO , and murder is by definition insane, then all murderers are not guilty. Nope

The definition of murderer, even if it involves making all murderers insane, is irrelevant to whether or not insane means not guilty.

If you ask yourself the question, "Are insane people not guilty?" You don't first determine whether all murderers are insane to answer the question.

I am saying that all murderers are guilty no matter what and that Insanity should not be a factor when determining guilt.

 

[Dezaad]

I am saying that all murderers are guilty no matter what and that Insanity should not be a factor when determining guilt.

But, when someone asks you "why?", you say "because all murderers are by definition insane". Making all murderers by definition insane does not change the way you evaluate whether insane people are not guilty. So, again... WHY? Why are insane people just as guilty as sane people?

 

[Flea]

Oh... I see our miscommunication now.

All murderers are not by definition insane. They just are insane. The idea of sanity gets tossed out the window. The defense is not applicable. It is just Murder.

 

[Dezaad]

Oh... I see our miscommunication now.

All murderers are not by definition insane. They just are insane. The idea of sanity gets tossed out the window. The defense is not applicable. It is just Murder.

"All murderers are by definition insane" and "All murderers are insane" is saying the very exact same thing. But, lets accept your statement, "All murderers are insane". It doesn't succeed in tossing insanity out the window.

All insane people are not guilty of the crime of murder.
All murderers are insane.
Therefore: All murderers are not guilty of murder.

You can't just define it away. You can challenge the notion that insanity doesn't confer innocence, absolutely. That is what I have been trying to invite you to do. But, saying that all murderers are insane doesn't help you.

In order to convince anyone, you are going to have to argue that insanity doesn't confer innocence. What is your argument?

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Dezaad
"All murderers are by definition insane" and "All murderers are insane" is saying the very exact same thing. But, lets accept your statement, "All murderers are insane". It doesn't succeed in tossing insanity out the window.

All insane people are not guilty of the crime of murder.
All murderers are insane.
Therefore: All murderers are not guilty of murder.

I am not sure why you keep saying that "All insane people are not guilty of the crime of murder". You have included it. I think that it should be omitted

You can't just define it away. You can challenge the notion that insanity doesn't confer innocence, absolutely. That is what I have been trying to invite you to do. But, saying that all murderers are insane doesn't help you.

In order to convince anyone, you are going to have to argue that insanity doesn't confer innocence. What is your argument?

I am not trying to convince anybody. I am just stating what I think and hoping that you are able or willing to understand what I am saying. Some people refuse change. Insanity will never change, but I am conveying an understanding regarding the psychology of a Murder, not what the legal ramification will be, but what they should be.

Like I said, you are describing the current way of looking at it, but that is not the way that I think that it should be.

 

[Dezaad]

I am not trying to convince anybody. I am just stating what I think and hoping that you are able or willing to understand what I am saying. Some people refuse change. Insanity will never change, but I am conveying an understanding regarding the psychology of a Murder, not what the legal ramification will be, but what they should be.

Like I said, you are describing the current way of looking at it, but that is not the way that I think that it should be.

Ok, well, I was thinking we were going to try and convince. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.

 

[Flea]

fair enough. We could go for the convince thing, but that would take research of an issue that I feel I innately understand. Since it won't change, I figure, why bother? I'll just express myself. :2razz:

Besides, this whole thing is Bodi's idea, where the hell is that guy?

 

[Diuretic]

The criminal law - got to be careful here, international forum and all that - in common law-influenced countries has a pretty simplistic approach to most things. For the lawyers here, sorry to state the bleedin' obvious, but as we remember from Blackstone, we need to have two aspects of a crime to convict the defendant. 1. Actus reus - the so-called "guilty act" and 2. Mens rea - the "guilty mind" also called intent.

The insanity defence - first laid out in the case of Daniel McNaughton (also called M'naghten and a few other variations) in 1843 gave us McNaughton's Rules. The objective of an insanity defence is to attack the mens rea. No mens rea, no offence. Of course it's a lot more complex than that but the driver is, did the defendant appreciate the true nature of his actions? If he did, then he's cactus. If he couldn't because of a mental disorder, then he can't be found guilty of, say, murder. Doesn't matter though, because they usually end up being detained for life or a long time in a mental institution.

The law in various jurisdictions that follow McNaughton's Rules has been built up over the years because our knowledge of psychology and psychiatry has grown since 1843. The problem is really in some of those jurisdictions that while our knowledge of mental issues has grown exponentially since 1843 the law, as usual dragging its lazy arse, hasn't kept up.

 

[Cephus]

I really don't buy the insanity plea for a couple reasons. First, it's ridiculously misused, you have everyone and their brother trying to claim they were insane for the 4.3 seconds it took to commit the crime, but otherwise they're fine. Second, it's irrelevant. Someone is dead. Someone killed them. It doesn't matter if they were high on drugs, talking to invisible martians or anything else, if you do the crime, you deserve to do the time.

I really don't think the insanity plea should be an excuse to get out of being punished. If you're nuts, you'll get treatment in prison, but you prison term should be exactly the same no matter what your supposed reason might have been for commiting the crime.

 

[Diuretic]

I really don't buy the insanity plea for a couple reasons. First, it's ridiculously misused, you have everyone and their brother trying to claim they were insane for the 4.3 seconds it took to commit the crime, but otherwise they're fine. Second, it's irrelevant. Someone is dead. Someone killed them. It doesn't matter if they were high on drugs, talking to invisible martians or anything else, if you do the crime, you deserve to do the time.

I really don't think the insanity plea should be an excuse to get out of being punished. If you're nuts, you'll get treatment in prison, but you prison term should be exactly the same no matter what your supposed reason might have been for commiting the crime.

Misused? Well, no. It's very rarely used. It's extremely difficult to mount an insanity defence and in any case if it's successful the defendant is going to be incarcerated in any case, probably for life. It's not an attractive option for the defence.

The situations you portray in your post aren't within the McNaughton's Rules so they should be disregarded as part of your argument.

 

[Patrickt]

They are incarcerated until the psychiatrists teem them safe to release. The record, in my experience, was less than a year and, viola, he was safe. Mr. Garrison had a woman's head in the trunk of his car the day the panel interviewed him and deemed him safe for an unconditional release.

 

[Cephus]

Misused? Well, no. It's very rarely used. It's extremely difficult to mount an insanity defence and in any case if it's successful the defendant is going to be incarcerated in any case, probably for life. It's not an attractive option for the defence.

When your alternative is the death penalty, it's certainly an attractive option to the defendant who doesn't want to die. That's why you see so many death row inmates fighting to get their death sentences commuted to LWOP.

The situations you portray in your post aren't within the McNaughton's Rules so they should be disregarded as part of your argument.

They certainly were typical under both the Durham and MPC standards that we had from the 50s-1981. M'Naghten was only reinstated after Hinckley tried exactly the kind of thing I talked about and the public was outraged. I agree that we should abolish the insanity plea entirely, it doesn't matter how crazy you might be, the result is the same, you left someone dead, you deserve to be punished for it.

 

[1069]

When your alternative is the death penalty, it's certainly an attractive option to the defendant who doesn't want to die.

It's rarely used (I posted statistics earlier in the thread, and am now too lazy to go back and find them. 1%, perhaps? Less?).
And it's even more rarely successful. Almost never.

I would hardly call it "ridiculously misused".