Amazon.com Widgets
  • I cant believe these results

    If someone is schizophrenic or mentally disabled and doesnt understand what they are doing they should not get the same sentence as someone who is in their right mind. If soneone isnt their senence should be more rehab based than someone who is in their right mind. Im not saying let them walk free im saying have a conscience and dont let our justice system be run by irrational emotion and knee jerk reactions.

  • Sometimes, but If it would NOT be a defense had their beliefs been real it should NOT be a defense if their beliefs were delusional.

    There are some people who really are legitimately insane and should be treated at a mental institution and if they can be cured sufficiently released with some restrictions like having to regularly see a psychiatrist depending on the condition they are released in.

    I do think that the insanity defense is often abused though. It should be strictly limited to cases where had the insane person's delusions been correct then that itself would've been a defense to the crime. So for instance a person who kills because he delusionally believes he must in order to save the world should be considered "not guilty by reason of insanity" since had he not been delusional and the world really had been in danger that would've almost certainly been accepted as a defense.

    BUT for example a person who delusionally believes that by committing murder they will impress a famous celebrity should NOT get "not guilty by reason of insanity." Perhaps it would be appropriate to send them to a mental institution to be treated for their illness at first but upon being cured they should be transported to prison to serve out their sentence. But considering them "not guilty" would be wrong because had their delusion been correct it could not even remotely be argued that this would be accepted by the court as a defense. In other words if the celebrity really would've been impressed the person would be found guilty, so they should be considered just as guilty if a mental illness makes them think the celebrity would be impressed. Either way they should've decided that their crime was not worth impressing a celebrity.

    A person who commits a crime based on a delusion of which had it been true would've still been no excuse is not safe to reenter society just because their mental illness is cured. They have still shown they are willing to commit a crime under circumstances that do NOT justify it.

  • Insanity does not erase the crime.

    Insanity pleas should not be allowed as this basically allows the defendant to be set free without any punishment whatsoever. A potentially violent person is released as a result of the plea; what if someone else is hurt by their actions? Instead of stating that someone is innocent because of insanity, the crime should be acknowledged and they should be marked guilty if it is found that they truly committed the crime. An insane criminal should be put into solitary confinement so that they may be able to recieve help (or forced to, really) while kept in confinement to keep the public safe. In some cases, these type of people are released and told by the court to seek help. However, because of HIPPA and other necessary laws, they can avoid going to their assigned clinic and seeking treatment.

  • We choose who we want in our society.

    Though I do agree with most of MasturDbtor's argument, a wrong has been committed and the victims are also in need of consideration. Even if the insane kills in order to "save the world", they've killed. No good deed goes unpunished, and considering the magnitude of the "means" to reach that "end" it should be accepted to sacrifice the self just in case they were wrong.

    This is hardly the logic of a madman, but to believe killing a person for some greater good should not be punished is inviting more people to do the same.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.