Innocent by reason of insanity/not competent to stand trial etc.
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Innocent by reason of insanity/not competent to stand trial etc.
How do you feel about this? It seems like I see it more and more on the news.
I think these terms get used way to much in the court of law.
Anyone can act crazy! I am being terribly sarcastic.
This is tough for me because I do feel that way. If I were going up against a person like this I would want an awful lot of Psyciatric (did I even spell that right) reports from an awful lot of doctors. There are too many opinionated (I can't spell today) doctors in this field (this is the field my dh is going to college to eventually be...) The worse thing in our area I only hold a few in high regard. Hope I am not stepping on any toes.
I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here.
In many states, the category is really "guilty but insane" or "guilty by reason of insanity", and the perpetrator is placed in a state run and well guarded mental institution. For example, John Hinkley, who has spent what - 20+ years in a tight security institution.
"Innocent by reason of insanity" - if that was the actual verdict, you can bet there were multiple psychiatric examinations, by both the defendant's psychiatrists and psychiatrists hired by the state.
I'd want to know more about the particulars of an individual case before I would have an opinion. But, for example, what about that woman on the West Coast who killed her children, and who had been diagnosed with severe post-partum depression but her husband not only did not get psychiatric help for her but insisted that she do home-schooling. I think she was truly insane, even by the tight standards that exist in criminal cases. Should she be in a prison, with no psychiatric treatment, or in a high-security mental hospital?
Something that really disturbs me is the very light sentences often given deaths caused by someone driving DUI, where the person deliberately chose to drink and then deliberately chose to drive. Or chose to use drugs and then chose to drive. I know in my state the Philadelphia Inquirer did a county by county study in the neighboring counties and municipalities, and enforcement on DUI varied from very strict to very light, depending on the local police department's attitudes and priorities.
Anyhow, that's my contribution to the debate.
I have to admit that I don't know alot about these laws and how they are carried out etc. I just hear the terms used quite a bit.
I did a google search and came up with this, which I thought made a good point. I guess it's just trying to change some of the laws from "innocent due to insanity" to "guilty, but insane", as Ginny was talking about above.
http://bowana.freeyellow.com/guilty/
I was just curious to see what others know about these terms, and how you feel about them.
Ginny, I remember the case you are referring to on the west coast....what was her sentence? Has she been sentenced yet?
I think Robin may have had John Hinkley in mind while posting. Right?
How can a person shoot the President of the US, inflict life altering damage to another man and be free to visit with family and friends after only 20 years? He's not a threat UNLESS he stops taking his meds. I don't care if he is a threat or not. He did the crime he should be made to pay. If he is not insane after 20 years, great for him. Now he should start serving a sentence in prison.
The woman who killed her children does have a mental illness which was enabled by her husband. In my opinion. She should have been sent to a hospital first and then if she gets her mind in control she needs to spend her sentence in prison.
I am sorry she was so seriously ill but she did kill five children.
First the women who killed her kids lived here (houston, Texas). She was found guilty, she did not win an insanity plea, so she was sentenced to life in prison I believe. And on a side note the house is for sale. As for Hinkley I guess one of my concerns is, yes he was punished in a hospital for awhile, but now he is getting family visits. What is to keep him from going on the deep end again? I think there must be some insanity in anyone who kills, some maybe be more mental than others and may benefit from help. But it seems to me that if you lose your insanity defence you are in prison for ever or on death row, but if you win, then after some years things get more lenient. I mean really why shoudl hinkley get to leave his hopital? He shot our president.
|
Members
