Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well, the Andrea Yates trial has brought up the Insanity defense again.

What do you think of the insanity defense? Should people who are insane be found "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

My own opinion is that they should not. I think guilt in a criminal proceeding should only deal with whether or not the person committed the crime, not the persons state of mind at the time the crime was committed. This doesn't mean that the issue of insanity couldn't come up. I would just prefer it to be a part of the sentencing phase of the trial rather than the accountability part of it.

I suppose the phrase I would use in place of "not guilty by reason of insanity" would be "guilty because of insanity".

its easy for a sane person to declare that insanity is no exuse.

but it would be easier for a truly insane person to do so.

I suppose that what I'm saying boils down to this: Insanity is not an excuse, but could be a mitigating factor.

Originally posted by PVS
its easy for a sane person to declare that insanity is no exuse.
It's even easier for a sane person to declare that insanity is an excuse.

Originally posted by Eis
It's even easier for a sane person to declare that insanity is an excuse.

and far easier to put words in people's mouths. unless of coarse i declaired that insanity is a suitable blanket excuse, which i clearly didnt.

believe it or not, there are people who lack the mental soundness to be aware of their actions as we are aware. just as there are people who exploit that fact and use it to win a case when the defendant was clearly aware of their actions. its not a black and white issue, you know.

Originally posted by PVS
and far easier to put words in people's mouths. unless of coarse i declaired that insanity is a suitable blanket excuse, which i clearly didnt.

believe it or not, there are people who lack the mental soundness to be aware of their actions as we are aware. just as there are people who exploit that fact and use it to win a case when the defendant was clearly aware of their actions. its not a black and white issue, you know.
Take it up with Bardock, he begged me to post that.

oh, i see. yeah, i should have seen bardock's fingerprints on that one

hey bardock, i hope you're enjoying your vacation

Originally posted by PVS
and far easier to put words in people's mouths. unless of coarse i declaired that insanity is a suitable blanket excuse, which i clearly didnt.

believe it or not, there are people who lack the mental soundness to be aware of their actions as we are aware. just as there are people who exploit that fact and use it to win a case when the defendant was clearly aware of their actions. its not a black and white issue, you know.

True, the question is where that comes into play. When we say that someone is not guilty by reason of insanity, are we really saying that no crime occurred? On the other hand, if insanity, mental illness, etc. were used in the sentencing phase as a mitigating circumstance, we could be acknowledging that the crime occurred and at the same time recognize that the person who committed it needs attention other than or instead of just jailtime.

I believe that insanity is a valid and necessary part of the legal system, providing it can be legally argued.

A prime part of the prosecutions case is proving mens rea and actus rea, basically guilty mind (conscious intent) and guilty act. A person can not be held fully responsible if they are not in control of their actions, or in a disturbed state where their judgement is impaired.

Really, murder, with intent, is not applicable then to a person genuinely under the cover of " insanity" - thus it is a mitigating circumstance at least. I, however, believe, in the right circumstances, that if it is found true to the case then the state has the duty to still remove the mentally ill party in question from society until they are recovered - that is not put in jail, but put into care where what they will receive treatment so it wont happen again - to my knowledge the US has this, as do many other western nations.

When it's used in court, insanity is like the whole Catch-22 scenario:

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. 'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' he observed. 'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed."

let us all breathe a sigh of relief that she didn't use the "twinkie defense"

is it not the case that if someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity that they still have to receive treatment

regardless there are a huge raft of test that must be applied for the insanity defence in the US

THE M'Naghten rules, The irresistible impulse, The Durham rule, The Insanity Defense Reform Act (US), The Substantial Capacity Test, The Brawner rule, Temporary insanity

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A prime part of the prosecutions case is proving mens rea and actus rea, basically guilty mind (conscious intent) and guilty act.Did you learn that in Legally Blonde too?

The insanity defense doesn't work here at KMC. Whob still posts here, and people still hold him accountable for his words.

yeah, but then you get into whether the insanity is voluntary or involuntary...

personally i think the insanity defense is used as a last resort when the defense knows they have no chance of winning but still wants to get the best deal for their client

As a rule I agree, but how do we get rid of those cases without being unjust to those who are truly mentally ill?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Did you learn that in Legally Blonde too?

Not initially, I did some legal studies when I was thinking " I could be a lawyer" - loved the subject, would have hated to be a lawyer.

However the teacher had a habit of being away at least twice a month -can you guess what she left the class to watch? Legally Blonde. I swear, by end of the course we had watched it about twelve times under the watcheful eye of substitute teachers (though I think we only got to the end about once)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's not really accurate. Everyone is capable of committing violent criminal acts. In fact most of the people I know, myself included have the means and the knowledge to get away with it too.

I believe you.

Originally posted by docb77
I partially agree with you. The question is though, to what degree are they responsible for their actions?

That is a good question. If you're a psychopath you're unable to grasp other peoples feelings. You're world-view is warped and not in touch with reality. Obviously psycopaths need to be locked away.

Originally posted by docb77
And in a fair system, at what stage of criminal proceedings should insanity be considered? Is the person not guilty? guilty, but not responsible? guilty and responsible, but deserving of a lesser sentence and treatment because of mitigating circumstances?

To me - any person prosecuted for a violent crime is insane. I would rather they be locked up at an insanity asylum indefinetely or until the professionals deemed the person cured of his/her insanity. It depends, of course, on the actual criminal act committed.