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

Insanity Defense

Rosalie
Posts: 4,930
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 8:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 year 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.
I'm back and I'm better.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 9,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 10:49:48 PM
Posted: 1 year 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.
"...feminazis, my favorite number..." ~PeterSmith

"Add that to the Bible, I guess." ~Max

"Isn't everything on this site my arbitrary whim?" ~Max

"If anyone wants to engage in casual anti-Semitism, then whatever." ~Max

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 10:56:36 PM
Posted: 1 year 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...
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 3,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 11:19:01 PM
Posted: 1 year 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: 4,930
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 11:47:45 PM
Posted: 1 year 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.
I'm back and I'm better.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:03:14 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:04:21 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 4,930
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:36:54 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
I'm back and I'm better.
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,563
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:53:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It really doesn't matter. Obama reminds us of the real truth that that guns make people insane, not other factors.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:38:04 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:41:51 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:45:55 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:48:20 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:49:24 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:55:02 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:55:35 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:56:04 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:56:42 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:58:13 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:58:59 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 2:59:42 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:00:37 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:02:15 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:07:10 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 13,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:14:00 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:23:13 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 9,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 4:20:45 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -