Should a Guilty/Insane Verdict be available in the U.S. Justice System?

[modest mouse]

With the case of Andrea Yates (the Houston mother who drowned her 5 children) being argued currently, the defense being one of 'not guilty for reason of insantiy', the issue of verdicts available seems pertinent.

Currently a jury can deem a person Guilty, Not Guilty, or Not Guilty for reson of Insanity(mental defect). The problem is in that a verdict of Insanity often means a brief term of treatment and then release with an unkown amount of aftercare. As a juror, I'd find that possibility rather disturbing.

What if a verdict was possible that mandated psychological treatment but also had a minimum 'sentence' of treatment/incarceration?

Should this be an option in our Judicial system?


***
Yes, I'm aware of the forum this thread is posted to.

 

[kotori]

Yes

There is an individual in this jurisdiction, who is border-line insane. She's unemployable, and has been arrested for minor crimes over 100 times. Yet she's consistantly (and no doubt justifiably) found not capable to stand trial. So she spends a month in the State Hospital, is determined to be "no threat to harm" anyone (she's never violent), and turned back on the streets. It's so pathetic! She did these "crimes" (she doesn't have the mental where-with-all NOT to get caught), but there's no relief for anyone.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes, I'm aware of the forum this thread is posted to.

So just exactly does this question require editorial advice?

 

[BasilDD]

Its easy to hide behind an insanity plea - well it is in the UK anyway.....

 

[MysticSwing]

Currently a jury can deem a person Guilty, Not Guilty, or Not Guilty for reson of Insanity(mental defect). The problem is in that a verdict of Insanity often means a brief term of treatment and then release with an unkown amount of aftercare. As a juror, I'd find that possibility rather disturbing.

The thought of anyone who is capable of killing their 5 children being released into society because they received "treatment" is VERY disturbing!!

~~Mystic

 

[Mensa]

This has been an old bugaboo of mine for years. Defense attorneys have used this as a means to get the guilty a way out. It is, however, one of the most difficult of defenses but we all know of instances where it has been improperly applied.

There should be a charge of "Guilty but insane" whereby proper treatment can be administered while the person serves the appropriate term for their crime.

Another change I'd like to see is in a case such as OJ's where if the prosecution hasn't done a good enough job of proving guilt but the evidence indicates that there is a high probability that the accused did indeed commit the crime, there could be a finding by the jury of "Not proved" which means that the prosecution has failed to convince guilt but the defense has failed to convince their innocence. It all goes back to the prosecution to strengthen their case.

 

[bluespoke]

This has been an old bugaboo of mine for years. Defense attorneys have used this as a means to get the guilty a way out. It is, however, one of the most difficult of defenses but we all know of instances where it has been improperly applied.

There should be a charge of "Guilty but insane" whereby proper treatment can be administered while the person serves the appropriate term for their crime.

Another change I'd like to see is in a case such as OJ's where if the prosecution hasn't done a good enough job of proving guilt but the evidence indicates that there is a high probability that the accused did indeed commit the crime, there could be a finding by the jury of "Not proved" which means that the prosecution has failed to convince guilt but the defense has failed to convince their innocence. It all goes back to the prosecution to strengthen their case.

I agree, as long as the appropriate term is the same as for someone found guilty.

Your second change is interesting. Such a system already exists in Scotland (not the rest of the UK) where a verdict of 'not proven' can enable the prosecution to go back and strengthen their case. More often what happens is that the case is left for fresh evidence to arise and the person can then be retried even years later.

 

[MysticSwing]

Another change I'd like to see is in a case such as OJ's where if the prosecution hasn't done a good enough job of proving guilt but the evidence indicates that there is a high probability that the accused did indeed commit the crime, there could be a finding by the jury of "Not proved" which means that the prosecution has failed to convince guilt but the defense has failed to convince their innocence. It all goes back to the prosecution to strengthen their case.

I agree!! In cases like this, when the accused is found not guilty they can't be tried again for the same crime even if new evidence shows up later that proves them almost 100% guilty! So a killer runs free.

~~Mystic

 

[Drifter014]

i think every case is different, depending on the crime.

In the case of Yates, i think if she is found insane she should be sent to the hospital until they deam her fit, and then instead of releasing her, she should be sent to prison for the rest of her stinking live.

Just my opinion.....

 

[riff]

I vote yes

If they are insane enough to commit the crime, then they don't need to be on the streets.

 

[Guest]

Dhammapada - Overcome anger by love; overcome wrong by good; overcome the miserly by generosity, and the liar by truth.

____________________
This random Quote or Scripture is provided in the hopes that riff will start to care, and will stop being such a butt!

This reminds me of that asshole "KidRock1." http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=25069



Another quality TrollBot from Ze Mad Zientist (TrollBot version 1.0 rev 32)

 

[Texan]

I am NOT a lawyer BUT,

I think it all goes back to one of our basic principles of justice. We are proud that we believe a person to be innocent until "proven" guilty. We depend on the state to argue on behalf of the people. If the state fails to present a convincing case, the accused "should" remain just as innocent (before the law) as they were when they entered the trial.

Mensa, a verdict of "Not proved" would give way too much power to the state. It would be like saying that a person is guilty until being proved innocent; and if the state doesn't do the job the first time, well give them as many attempts as they need.

In the case of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity", the burden of proof is already on the accused. The prosecution does not need to prove the accused committed the crime. The defense must prove the accused is insane. I think that if the defense can prove insanity, even with a jury that will naturally be inclined not to let the accused off easily, they have earned their Not Guilty verdict.

Instead of changing the concept of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity", I believe the disposition of the defendant after trail should remain under the authority of the court, rather than the mental institution. I think the court should be allowed to keep the defendant in an institution for the criminally insane as long is is necessary for some sense of justice to be served.

just my thoughts

 

[Mensa]

Re: I am NOT a lawyer BUT,

I think it all goes back to one of our basic principles of justice. We are proud that we believe a person to be innocent until "proven" guilty. We depend on the state to argue on behalf of the people. If the state fails to present a convincing case, the accused "should" remain just as innocent (before the law) as they were when they entered the trial.

Mensa, a verdict of "Not proved" would give way too much power to the state. It would be like saying that a person is guilty until being proved innocent; and if the state doesn't do the job the first time, well give them as many attempts as they need.

In the case of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity", the burden of proof is already on the accused. The prosecution does not need to prove the accused committed the crime. The defense must prove the accused is insane. I think that if the defense can prove insanity, even with a jury that will naturally be inclined not to let the accused off easily, they have earned their Not Guilty verdict.

Instead of changing the concept of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity", I believe the disposition of the defendant after trail should remain under the authority of the court, rather than the mental institution. I think the court should be allowed to keep the defendant in an institution for the criminally insane as long is is necessary for some sense of justice to be served.

just my thoughts

"Not proved" wouldn't change anything other than giving juries an out in cases like OJ's where if the prosecution had presented a stronger case, the jury would have found him guilty. The evidence clearly indicates guilt but they failed to prove it convincingly to the jury leaving them with no option but to find him not guilty. As to giving the prosecution unlimited opportunities to prove guilt, I wouldn't object to having them restricted as to the number of times they can try the accused.

"Guilty but insane" would ensure that the person stayed under correctional authority until they truly were safe to be released.

 

[lovetoread]

I think that if you are declared insane,then you are insane period. Not for just that moment,but forever and ever. You should be put in an institution and never released. If it can happen once,it can happen again.

 

[lavender]

 

[DustyWolfe]

Some people can easily put on an act to get an insanity plea.
Though with the new field of forensic psychiatry this is becoming harder and harder.
I'm beginning to wonder about the insanity plea however. I don't know that a person can be temporarily insane, unless they are in a bad situation.. Then in that instance it is possible. People that are in poor situation, or even volatile will do crazy things. For example, a woman that has lived with an abusive husband for X number of years might murder him. Is she crazy? No... But at that particular moment could she have been. Yes.

THere are too many grey areas with this too to define insanity either way so that one might determine if this is a good plea.

The only totally black and white area to solve this is to reserve the plea for those that have been under medical treatment for mental or emotional disorders, as well as those that are mentally handicapped.

Sorry.. just some of my ramblings....

Dusty

 

[RisiaSkye]

I have problems with the whole idea of the insanity plea. Who gets to decide what sanity means? The legal standard of "understanding" and "mental capacity" makes an already difficult issue nearly impossible to muddle through.

Some questions that suggest the complications:
*Is it more insane to kill your children than to kill five strangers? Why? Whose values determine this?

*Is it insane to be a prostitute if you come from a wealthy family who would gladly support you if only you're willing to put up with their shit? Why/why not? Again, who gets to decide?

*Why is it that so many more beige people than those of any other shade are declared "insane" and thus sent to institutions? Hmm, surely coincidental, right?

On the other hand, institutions are no fucking picnic, whatever "Dateline" may have said. And the laws are set up so that the "patient" has absolutely no ability to participate in the process of determining sanity. For instance: if declared insane before the trial--still legal in most states--they can be sent to an institution for an indeterminate period of time. The decision to retain the incarcerated accused comes from the staff; in most cases, in state-funded hospitals, that amounts to less than an hour a week in which the testifying doctors determine the "sanity" of the accused. This would presumably not happen if they hadn't been arrested for a crime, yet they serve time without ever receiving a trial.

Add to that the fact that I'm not at all sure "insanity" is anything but another way of saying "We of the Majority don't like your choices or way of thinking," and I'm hopelessly unable to decide this issue. However, given all my doubts, I lean toward NO, but with a caveat.

There should be no "insanity" classification in the question of guilt or innocence, period. If you're guilty, you're guilty. Mental health issues should not factor into the question of guilt. If you did it, you're guilty. If you're also crazy, you should go to an appropriate facility in which to serve your sentence--one designed on both therapeutic and disciplinary models.

But, what do I know? I'm just a law-abiding non-kook, right?

At least, I play one on TV. When the voices tell me to, and I get high enough to perform.

Edited because I can't type.

 

[sch00lteacher]

I have always felt that you would have to be insane to kill someone under most circumstances.

If you walk into a 7-11, and shoot the clerk in the head for a few bucks, your fucking crazy.

But I don't think that kind of crazy should allow you to escape the law and the punishments of the law.

Look at ol' buddy Dahmer(sp). The dude was killing people, and eating them. He was having sex with their dead bodies. He was wacked. Stark Raving Mad. But he should have gotten the death penalty.

I don't buy the excuse of temporary insanity. What, one minute you were fine, the next minute you went nuts and shot fifty people at Burger King, then, poof your sane again? You don't want me on your jury.

This lady in Texas, she killed her kids because she what, didn't want the devil or someone to get them? I'm not sure, heard in passing on TV. This sounds a little more serious than temporary insanity, this sounds like scary crazy. Have you ever met someone on the street or what ever that scared the crap out of you, some homeless guy. Or maybe the "crazy" old lady that lived down the street from you when you were a kid? This is scary crazy. You know they are capable of doing something. You feel it, it is a survival instinct left over from the old days.

I don't know the whole story about her, I have tried to not listen to it. It bothers me when parents kill their kids. That alone tells me something isn't right with that person. Parents don't kill their kids. Kids don't kill their parents, either. When it does happen, something is wrong, beyond regular wrong.

 

[riff]

I have always felt that you would have to be insane to kill someone under most circumstances.

If you walk into a 7-11, and shoot the clerk in the head for a few bucks, your fucking crazy.

But I don't think that kind of crazy should allow you to escape the law and the punishments of the law.

Look at ol' buddy Dahmer(sp). The dude was killing people, and eating them. He was having sex with their dead bodies. He was wacked. Stark Raving Mad. But he should have gotten the death penalty.

I don't buy the excuse of temporary insanity. What, one minute you were fine, the next minute you went nuts and shot fifty people at Burger King, then, poof your sane again? You don't want me on your jury.

This lady in Texas, she killed her kids because she what, didn't want the devil or someone to get them? I'm not sure, heard in passing on TV. This sounds a little more serious than temporary insanity, this sounds like scary crazy. Have you ever met someone on the street or what ever that scared the crap out of you, some homeless guy. Or maybe the "crazy" old lady that lived down the street from you when you were a kid? This is scary crazy. You know they are capable of doing something. You feel it, it is a survival instinct left over from the old days.

I don't know the whole story about her, I have tried to not listen to it. It bothers me when parents kill their kids. That alone tells me something isn't right with that person. Parents don't kill their kids. Kids don't kill their parents, either. When it does happen, something is wrong, beyond regular wrong.

Lock'em up and throw away the key, I say.