Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Insanity Defense

Rosalie
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I always found this topic interesting.

Insanity Defense: In criminal trials, the mental disorder defense, insanity defense or insanity plea is a defense by excuse that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric illness.

Here's the backround to it:

The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. British courts came up with the "wild beast" test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than "an infant, a brute, or a wild beast."

Besides the fact that courts no longer use the terms "lunatic" or "wild beast," current laws allowing for the insanity defense follow a similar logic. The legal basis for insanity was codified into British law in the mid 19th Century with the M'Naughten Rule, which is used in a majority of U.S. states and other jurisdictions around the world today. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com...

My questions are:

How did pleading insanity (or the equivalent) as a defense come to be shorthand for getting off easy in the eyes of the public?

Was there ever a point in time in which an insanity defense was viewed as a more legitimate plea? Or was there some period of abuse (not sure how) of insanity pleas?

Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

I'm interested in everyone's opinion.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,544
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 10:49:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I always found this topic interesting.

Insanity Defense: In criminal trials, the mental disorder defense, insanity defense or insanity plea is a defense by excuse that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric illness.

Here's the backround to it:

The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. British courts came up with the "wild beast" test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than "an infant, a brute, or a wild beast."

Besides the fact that courts no longer use the terms "lunatic" or "wild beast," current laws allowing for the insanity defense follow a similar logic. The legal basis for insanity was codified into British law in the mid 19th Century with the M'Naughten Rule, which is used in a majority of U.S. states and other jurisdictions around the world today. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com...

My questions are:

How did pleading insanity (or the equivalent) as a defense come to be shorthand for getting off easy in the eyes of the public?

Anyone can temporarily fake insanity. All they have to do is know what to do and how to answer the questions. Also, you see it a lot in modern court cases.

Was there ever a point in time in which an insanity defense was viewed as a more legitimate plea? Or was there some period of abuse (not sure how) of insanity pleas?

I'm not sure, but I would say that there was at one point. Probably the period surrounding the time the plea was first adopted until recent times, when it seems to be all you ever see.

Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

Yes. They should be locked up and watched. The did it once, they could do it again.

I'm interested in everyone's opinion.

You gots minez.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 10:56:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I always found this topic interesting.

Insanity Defense: In criminal trials, the mental disorder defense, insanity defense or insanity plea is a defense by excuse that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric illness.

Here's the backround to it:

The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. British courts came up with the "wild beast" test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than "an infant, a brute, or a wild beast."

Besides the fact that courts no longer use the terms "lunatic" or "wild beast," current laws allowing for the insanity defense follow a similar logic. The legal basis for insanity was codified into British law in the mid 19th Century with the M'Naughten Rule, which is used in a majority of U.S. states and other jurisdictions around the world today. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com...

My questions are:

How did pleading insanity (or the equivalent) as a defense come to be shorthand for getting off easy in the eyes of the public?

Was there ever a point in time in which an insanity defense was viewed as a more legitimate plea? Or was there some period of abuse (not sure how) of insanity pleas?

Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

I'm interested in everyone's opinion.

There's a lot of tests out there to detect fakers. Some kid recently in the news killed his math teacher and stuffed her in a garbage bin and rolled her out to the woods. He was confirmed as faking insanity and convicted guilty of 1st degree murder.

http://www.bostonglobe.com...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 11:19:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The art to it is looking up in the left hand corner of the court room keep focused on that point. rocking back and forth and chuckling every 3 to 5 mins. I've mastered it. Dribbling helps too. Then instead of 20 years in jail you can go hang out with Norman and Nigel for 10 years. Where they feed you wicked drugs . Maybe you can do a bit of poo painting in your cell to keep up with appearances.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 11:47:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 10:56:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I always found this topic interesting.

Insanity Defense: In criminal trials, the mental disorder defense, insanity defense or insanity plea is a defense by excuse that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric illness.

Here's the backround to it:

The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. British courts came up with the "wild beast" test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than "an infant, a brute, or a wild beast."

Besides the fact that courts no longer use the terms "lunatic" or "wild beast," current laws allowing for the insanity defense follow a similar logic. The legal basis for insanity was codified into British law in the mid 19th Century with the M'Naughten Rule, which is used in a majority of U.S. states and other jurisdictions around the world today. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com...

My questions are:

How did pleading insanity (or the equivalent) as a defense come to be shorthand for getting off easy in the eyes of the public?

Was there ever a point in time in which an insanity defense was viewed as a more legitimate plea? Or was there some period of abuse (not sure how) of insanity pleas?

Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

I'm interested in everyone's opinion.

There's a lot of tests out there to detect fakers. Some kid recently in the news killed his math teacher and stuffed her in a garbage bin and rolled her out to the woods. He was confirmed as faking insanity and convicted guilty of 1st degree murder.

http://www.bostonglobe.com...

But should one not be held accountable if they are insane? What if they continue to manslaughter, do they continually get off the hook? I think that being insane isnt a moral plea. They should be seperated from society.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:04:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Here in Oregon we have something called "guilty but insane" instead of "not guilty by reason of insanity". My understanding is that it lets the judge commit someone to a mental institution if deemed necessary. Seems like a better policy.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:36:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

We let prisoners go on a weekly basis. They are less likely to committ the same crime (if they aren't insane) because they have learned their lesson, and spent their time. If someone is insane, they will continually repeat themselves, therfor society is unsafe. More unsafe then letting a non insane person out.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:38:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:36:54 AM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

We let prisoners go on a weekly basis. They are less likely to committ the same crime (if they aren't insane) because they have learned their lesson, and spent their time. If someone is insane, they will continually repeat themselves, therfor society is unsafe. More unsafe then letting a non insane person out.

You obviously are incompetent with basic statistics, as well as your ability to read studies that are linked in posts.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?
Call me King Pootie Tang.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?

Our petty and unwarranted stigmatization is punishment enough.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:49:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I always found this topic interesting.

Insanity Defense: In criminal trials, the mental disorder defense, insanity defense or insanity plea is a defense by excuse that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric illness.

Here's the backround to it:

The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. British courts came up with the "wild beast" test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than "an infant, a brute, or a wild beast."

Besides the fact that courts no longer use the terms "lunatic" or "wild beast," current laws allowing for the insanity defense follow a similar logic. The legal basis for insanity was codified into British law in the mid 19th Century with the M'Naughten Rule, which is used in a majority of U.S. states and other jurisdictions around the world today. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com...

My questions are:

How did pleading insanity (or the equivalent) as a defense come to be shorthand for getting off easy in the eyes of the public?

Because people believe that being institutionalized isn't as severe as prison.

Was there ever a point in time in which an insanity defense was viewed as a more legitimate plea? Or was there some period of abuse (not sure how) of insanity pleas?

No plea can ever really be abused unless the prosecution does a really poor job, hence the beauty of our adversarial system. Besides how does one determine if a plea is abused or not? That is almost completely subjective.

Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

Yes, but not necessarily in prison if you believe the goal of our justice system should be rehabilitation whether than retribution.

I'm interested in everyone's opinion.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:52:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?

Our petty and unwarranted stigmatization is punishment enough.

...not even sure how to respond to that. I'm hoping that I'm misunderstanding you somehow. It's not okay to just let people off the hook for violent crimes because "they have hard enough lives already"
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:55:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

What should we do with the violently insane then? Let them roam the streets freely? Also saying there is no way to effectively treat mental illness is controversial and can't be accepted at face value. I am absolutely for rehabilitation over retribution, but that is because the ultimate end of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights, that includes making sure people that have a high probability of committing violent acts aren't allowed to do so.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:55:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:52:32 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?

Our petty and unwarranted stigmatization is punishment enough.

...not even sure how to respond to that. I'm hoping that I'm misunderstanding you somehow. It's not okay to just let people off the hook for violent crimes because "they have hard enough lives already"

Well, do you expect them to be in absolute control of their actions, with no chance of one break, with absolute responsibility like a regular person? By the way, when there is a death as a result of a breakdown in mental competency, it is more likely to be a suicide than homicide.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:56:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

No. Absolutely not. To counter you and VoT, the notion that they are a "harm" to society is utterly false (http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com...), and we should remember that psychiatric institutions (/"lunatic asylums")

1. Were human rights deficient
2. Were underfunded (goes with #1)
3. Maintained, worsened, and sometimes created the condition of institutionalization

The idea of locking these people up today in prisons is just as bad. Prisons are overpopulated, underfunded as a result, inefficient in mental health care, and encourage recidivism in our "tough on crime", punishment-orientated penal system - far more so than deinstitutionalization ever did.

What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?

Our petty and unwarranted stigmatization is punishment enough.

I didn't know stigmatization stops murder or protects the innocent, please enlighten me.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:55:02 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

What should we do with the violently insane then? Let them roam the streets freely? Also saying there is no way to effectively treat mental illness is controversial and can't be accepted at face value. I am absolutely for rehabilitation over retribution, but that is because the ultimate end of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights, that includes making sure people that have a high probability of committing violent acts aren't allowed to do so.

They aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes when released.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:58:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:56:04 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?

Our petty and unwarranted stigmatization is punishment enough.

I didn't know stigmatization stops murder or protects the innocent, please enlighten me.

It was a remark on societal attitude towards the mentally ill, and their painful ignorance on the subject.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:58:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:55:02 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

What should we do with the violently insane then? Let them roam the streets freely? Also saying there is no way to effectively treat mental illness is controversial and can't be accepted at face value. I am absolutely for rehabilitation over retribution, but that is because the ultimate end of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights, that includes making sure people that have a high probability of committing violent acts aren't allowed to do so.

They aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes when released.

If they can never be cured then they should be locked up for life, the end of government is to protect our rights, you don't have a right to violate other people no matter who you are, and if you can never be cured of your intent to do so then you ought to be prevented from ever doing so by being imprisoned. Is there something in there you disagree with?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:59:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:58:59 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:55:02 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

What should we do with the violently insane then? Let them roam the streets freely? Also saying there is no way to effectively treat mental illness is controversial and can't be accepted at face value. I am absolutely for rehabilitation over retribution, but that is because the ultimate end of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights, that includes making sure people that have a high probability of committing violent acts aren't allowed to do so.

They aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes when released.

If they can never be cured then they should be locked up for life, the end of government is to protect our rights, you don't have a right to violate other people no matter who you are, and if you can never be cured of your intent to do so then you ought to be prevented from ever doing so by being imprisoned. Is there something in there you disagree with?

Yes. They have rights too.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:00:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:58:13 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:56:04 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?

Our petty and unwarranted stigmatization is punishment enough.

I didn't know stigmatization stops murder or protects the innocent, please enlighten me.

It was a remark on societal attitude towards the mentally ill, and their painful ignorance on the subject.

I agree with you 100% that the mentally ill are in a lot of instances unfairly stigmatized, and we should be taking measures to bring awareness to their struggles, but that doesn't mean we should give the violently insane any sort of break if its at the expense of protecting the innocent.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:02:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:59:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:58:59 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:55:02 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

What should we do with the violently insane then? Let them roam the streets freely? Also saying there is no way to effectively treat mental illness is controversial and can't be accepted at face value. I am absolutely for rehabilitation over retribution, but that is because the ultimate end of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights, that includes making sure people that have a high probability of committing violent acts aren't allowed to do so.

They aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes when released.

If they can never be cured then they should be locked up for life, the end of government is to protect our rights, you don't have a right to violate other people no matter who you are, and if you can never be cured of your intent to do so then you ought to be prevented from ever doing so by being imprisoned. Is there something in there you disagree with?

Yes. They have rights too.

You don't have the right to violate people, and if you intend to do so then you should be stopped, or if you can't control your actions to the point that you are capable of being impulsively violent you should be stopped. I can't tell if you are trolling right now but I really hope you are.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:07:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:59:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:58:59 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:55:02 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

What should we do with the violently insane then? Let them roam the streets freely? Also saying there is no way to effectively treat mental illness is controversial and can't be accepted at face value. I am absolutely for rehabilitation over retribution, but that is because the ultimate end of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights, that includes making sure people that have a high probability of committing violent acts aren't allowed to do so.

They aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes when released.

If they can never be cured then they should be locked up for life, the end of government is to protect our rights, you don't have a right to violate other people no matter who you are, and if you can never be cured of your intent to do so then you ought to be prevented from ever doing so by being imprisoned. Is there something in there you disagree with?

Yes. They have rights too.

To clarify a just government's first goal ought to be to protect the innocent, and then afford rights to the violators if it doesn't unduly come at the expense of the innocent later on.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:14:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 3:02:15 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:59:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:58:59 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
They aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes when released.

If they can never be cured then they should be locked up for life, the end of government is to protect our rights, you don't have a right to violate other people no matter who you are, and if you can never be cured of your intent to do so then you ought to be prevented from ever doing so by being imprisoned. Is there something in there you disagree with?

Yes. They have rights too.

You don't have the right to violate people, and if you intend to do so then you should be stopped, or if you can't control your actions to the point that you are capable of being impulsively violent you should be stopped. I can't tell if you are trolling right now but I really hope you are.

I'm not trolling. I've already pointed to a decently-sized study that nobody bothered to look at - that says the mentally ill are not any more likely to commit violent crimes after released than those who do not qualify for such illnesses. We encourage recidivism with our penal system that has become the new center of institutionalization - and it is a testament to our system. No other system comes within a mile of our recidivism rates nor our incarcerated per 100,000. And our system neither treats the mentally ill sufficiently to better symptoms or rehabilitates criminals effectively to keep them from returning to prison after being released. The point is now that the mentally ill are not more commonly doing the same things over and over again than others. So how is it moral to keep these people in prisons and psych wards?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:23:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 3:14:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 3:02:15 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:59:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:58:59 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
They aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes when released.

If they can never be cured then they should be locked up for life, the end of government is to protect our rights, you don't have a right to violate other people no matter who you are, and if you can never be cured of your intent to do so then you ought to be prevented from ever doing so by being imprisoned. Is there something in there you disagree with?

Yes. They have rights too.

You don't have the right to violate people, and if you intend to do so then you should be stopped, or if you can't control your actions to the point that you are capable of being impulsively violent you should be stopped. I can't tell if you are trolling right now but I really hope you are.

I'm not trolling. I've already pointed to a decently-sized study that nobody bothered to look at - that says the mentally ill are not any more likely to commit violent crimes after released than those who do not qualify for such illnesses. We encourage recidivism with our penal system that has become the new center of institutionalization - and it is a testament to our system. No other system comes within a mile of our recidivism rates nor our incarcerated per 100,000. And our system neither treats the mentally ill sufficiently to better symptoms or rehabilitates criminals effectively to keep them from returning to prison after being released. The point is now that the mentally ill are not more commonly doing the same things over and over again than others. So how is it moral to keep these people in prisons and psych wards?

I tend to agree that our prison system doesn't rehabilitate people nor do our mental institutions properly treat people, but that is a reason to reform those systems so they achieve the end of a just society, not to put said society recklessly in harmsway. I'd have to look at the study but even if it is true it doesn't take away from the idea that we should use the individual analyses of psychiatrists to determine when and if the violently insane ever leave a mental institution, also it is presumable that the reason the violently insane are less likely to be repeat offenders is because they are treated, the same cannot be said for our nation's prisoners. I don't think the study tested for the negative variable that you seem to want, which is just to throw these people back on the streets after they are found guilty with no government action at all.. except maybe shoving a pill down their throat (I have family members that are mentally ill, trust me those don't always work and when they do it usually takes multiple different medications until the right one is found). I am not saying all the violently ill should be locked up forever, it should be based on a case by case analysis determined by a professional.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:44:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 2:55:35 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:52:32 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/7/2016 12:29:18 AM, spacetime wrote:
What's wrong with locking them up in modern mental institutions until they've been rehabilitated (if ever) ?

Because there are many people who can be diagnosed with mental disorders - it's not like they're all raving lunatic murderers. You also can't quite "rehabilitate" the mentally ill. You can medicate them to make symptoms less severe, and they're not likely to commit the crimes again. There's no point in locking them up.

So just give mentally ill people a free pass to commit violent crimes without punishment?

Our petty and unwarranted stigmatization is punishment enough.

...not even sure how to respond to that. I'm hoping that I'm misunderstanding you somehow. It's not okay to just let people off the hook for violent crimes because "they have hard enough lives already"

Well, do you expect them to be in absolute control of their actions, with no chance of one break, with absolute responsibility like a regular person?

I'm not saying that they should be punished like regular people are. Being put in a mental institution puts the focus of on rehabilitation and incapacitation rather than retribution. (Although, as a side note, I really don't buy that mental illnesses make responsibility for ones actions impossible. Much more difficult, yes, but not impossible).

By the way, when there is a death as a result of a breakdown in mental competency, it is more likely to be a suicide than homicide.

What?
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 4:20:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Also, if there is a mentally insane person, shouldn't they be locked up anyways because they are a harm to society?

The problem with this is that 'insane' is a legal term; it has no medical definition. Mentally ill people are actually less likely to commit violent crime by a significant margin. What we ought to do is institutionalize those who rely on the insanity defense; but I think that some states already do that to some degree.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -