Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

Insanity defense is less stringent and involves evaluations post-trial. In MA, that’s as short as 40 days.

4

Anonymous OP 9w

“Insanity defense” is not any one thing. It’s a bunch of similar things being referred to as if they were the same. What is as short as 40 days in MA? Can you clarify?

14

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

As short as 40 days to release on a finding of NG by lack of criminal responsibility. They’re then reevaluated on an annual basis. Thats grossly insufficient. The essential difference between NGRI/the insanity defense and guilty but insane is the finding of culpability. That’s important because NGRI generally leaves open the possibility that murderers are released in very short time. They take various forms but it’s the same concept.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

And especially now that the public has grasp on NGRI as a concept, it’s time that some legislative momentum is generated. Some of the public believe that you just walk. Others know that you’re reevaluated and released when found competent. That’s a bad formula and an ineffective deterrent.

4

Anonymous OP 9w

Yeah it’s definitely not time for that, the policy you’re describing is manifestly reasonable.

11

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

It’s causing needless reoffending. Full stop. On a balance of interests, the safety of the public should come before the liberty of a murderer who was found legally insane.

3

Anonymous OP 9w

Where are you seeing this happening

13

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X15002243 “Rates of violent reoffending following release are of the greatest concern to the community. They have ranged from 4.0% in a period of 3.6 years to 20.0% at an average period of 6.5 years after discharge.” In other words, while it’s certainly not guaranteed, NGRI and subsequent release endangers the public in a fashion that guilty but insane does not.

2

Anonymous #2 9w

That’s correct and not where the critique in this comment lies.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

Ultimately, yes it is. You want to impose criminal liability on people with effectively no mens rea based on mental infirmity, and you’re upset that the insanity defense doesn’t allow you to do so. This is your whole complaint. The second we acknowledge that you’re proposing a gross injustice and that’s not a legitimate thing to want, your critique falls with it.

3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

Yes as you ignore empirical evidence presented above that the insanity defense endangers the public, correct? You cannot pretend that’s an illegitimate interest of the state and public. That’s disingenuous. And no, it’s not. Guilty but insane and NGRI both imply that factual guilt exists. The difference being that one has mandatory procedure and terms while the other involves a discretionary and periodic reevaluation process. THAT is where the critique lies.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

Haven’t responded to yet because I just got back on here ≠ ignored, goofball. And no, it’s not disingenuous to say that gross injustice should not be tolerated no matter the proposed motive. What you need to be proposing is BETTER discretionary decisions based on evaluation, not dismissing such altogether.

6

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

We can also get into mens rea if you want. Driving under the influence is a strict liability offense. So is statutory r*** in a good portion of jurisdictions. So why isn’t homicide? They’re insane, yes. That’s why they killed somebody. They don’t belong back in the general public given the current state of science cannot truly demarcate the insane from the sane and therefore when a person is deemed “rehabilitated” that determination was made with no degree of certainty. They belong in hospital.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

Granted, self defense and castle doctrine are places that probably warrant the exclusion of homicide from SL. The insanity defense, however, is not such a place.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

So propose reform then, not treating the infirm as guilty when they aren’t in any reasonable sense of the word. Your concern is incapacitation of people who will likely commit harmful conduct again, and that’s a valid concern that I share. But it does not and cannot justify treating people as criminally guilty and imposing punitive measures without respect to recovery of faculties or an end to the danger they pose. Like do you have any idea what you’re proposing in practice?

14

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

“Gross injustice” is needlessly causing the death of innocent laypeople when a person deemed rehabilitated by an entirely subjective process reoffends. Address that.

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

Under the current state of science, the better discretion you mention is impossible. We still are nowhere near fully understanding the illnesses that cause a person to be deemed legally insane, LET ALONE being able to effectively demarcate the insane from the sane.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

First, the jump from “we can’t have 100% certainty” to “there is no degree of certainty whatsoever” is facially disingenuous especially in the legal context where we talk about different burdens of proof in fact finding. Second, homicide is not a strict liability offense because mental state matters to whether that should be punished or not — sometimes one person proximately causes another’s death not even by negligence, it’s just a tragic accident. Mens rea is what makes murder punishable.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

The punitive measure I propose is that they are institutionalized in a mental hospital for a mandatory minimum term, not that they are imprisoned. A corresponding reform would be improving said facilities and ensuring that their patients have adequate living and visitation arrangements. With the state of science, the simple reality is that we cannot demarcate the insane from the sane, and we do not know when/if a person is rehabilitated and no longer a threat to themselves and others.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

I did not say that 100% certainty was required. If you think we’re anywhere close to even 90% of that currently, you’re sorely mistaken. Do you think a medical provider could prove by the preponderance of the evidence that a person actually has been rehabilitated? Let alone RD? It’s a subjective, discretionary decision that experts cannot say with ANY real degree of certainty under the current state of science.

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

Negligent homicide is still an offense and does not require criminal intent. It’s now being used to arrest and prosecute parents whom should’ve known that their children was a threat and disregarded said risk in allowing that child access to weapons. Which is fair. But we shouldn’t have those laws and turn around and allow a person who we cannot confidently say is insane can walk after 18 months.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

I fundamentally disagree with your position that we can’t make good determinations about recovery from insanity, but that is just sitting in the background of your much bigger problem: “Just make the prisons nicer” is not a legitimate way of reforming your incarceration scheme.

12

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

“Just make the prisons nicer” isn’t my point, given that I’m advocating not actually sending them to prison. A separate facility, a state run psychiatric hospital, is the proper place. If you fundamentally disagree with the problem of demarcation under current science, present some evidence. Their current method is HCR-20, which is both subjective and fails. 5-15% who “pass” reoffend within 5 years. Lifetime reoccurrence is still not known.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

It literally is your point, why should I continue arguing with you if you won’t even be honest about it? Calling it a hospital instead of a prison, when you’re still getting incarcerated there as a sentence for criminal guilt, is like putting lipstick on a pig and expecting anybody to kiss it.

8

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 9w

You know my point better than me apparently, given you’ve now put words in mouth several times. It’s a hospital because it will be run by and they will be supervised by medical providers and caretakers, not prison guards. If there’s a genuine and measurable risk that the person is going to go back into society just to kill themselves and/or others, they don’t belong back. On a simple weighing of the interests, the lives of innocent laypeople is above the liberty of a murderer.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

That just doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to prevent any of them from going back into society. It just seems cruel

5

Anonymous OP 9w

But couldn’t you say that about any criminal who gets out of jail after serving their time? Technically, wouldn’t an expert making a decision about whether or not someone is rehabilitated produce more accurate results than just assuming someone is rehabilitated after serving their entire prison sentence? Obviously we aren’t going to just make them stay in prison forever. Idk

5

Anonymous #3 9w

Ridiculous. What’s cruel is the innocent people the rule harms.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

I will say sentencing for violent crime in this country is also ludicrous, but that’s another story. Both are under the same bucket of causing crime and creating victims that could’ve very easily been prevented - given that they’d already been arrested and had a trial. I point directly to the recurrence rate for violent offenders.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

More than one thing can be cruel at a time

1

Anonymous #2 9w

Yes, and that necessitates balancing. What’s more important, the lives of innocent laypeople or the liberty of a person who committed a violent crime?

0

Anonymous OP 9w

People’s liberties are absolutely more important than their safety. You can’t take away someone’s rights because you think they might commit a crime in the future.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

No, but you CAN deprive liberty when they DID commit a crime, which is what we’re talking about. In the case of murderers, the state should not be permitted to release them unless and until they can demonstrate with some REAL degree of certainty that it is safe to do so. Which they still cannot. Don’t want your liberty taken? Don’t commit violent crime.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

Cool so our constitution prohibits excessive and extreme punishments. People accused of crimes have rights, as do those convicted of crimes.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments*. You may be thinking of the excessive bail clause, which is entirely unrelated. Even the death penalty has been upheld against the c&u clauses, except in the instance of the insane. It’s perfectly clear by the constitutional law of this country that the safety of the public is a compelling state interest.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

Once again, you can’t take away someone’s rights because you think they’ll commit a crime in the future. Increasing someone’s sentence explicitly because you don’t want them to commit another crime is very illegal, and rightfully so.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

You don’t get it. Imposing mandatory life in prison - even for a person who is legally insane - is perfectly constitutional. Kahler v. Kansas also established that states have no requirement to provide NGRI. And again, we are talking about the deprivation of liberty AFTER a crime has been committed, not before.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

Also, increasing punishments because you don’t want them to commit another crime in the future is called specific deterrence. It is perfectly constitutional. In fact, it’s one of the primary purposes of the CJS.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

Giving someone life in prison because you don’t want them to commit another crime isn’t legal. Sentencing is based on criminal history, not potential future crimes.

0

Anonymous #2 9w

Are you being disingenuous? Giving someone life in prison because you don’t want them to commit a crime is PERFECTLY, MANIFESTLY legal. It happens everyday in this country. Incapacitation and deterrence have been found compelling state interests in the courts of this country. Life in prison and the death penalty have been upheld against constitutional challenges. You are wrong on the law AND you are wrong on why we punish.

0

Anonymous OP 9w

Another crime^

0

Anonymous OP 9w

lol you’re free to hold that opinion, but it will never be reflected in our laws because it’s incredibly illegal and inhumane

0

Anonymous #2 9w

It’s not an “opinion” to state that life imprisonment for a person convicted of homicide is perfectly legal, even if that person is legally insane. Four states have already abolished the insanity defense. You can argue the “inhumane” piece - that is a subjective. What you cannot argue is whether it is legal to abolish NGRI. It is.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

Also, I’d argue it’s more inhumane to allow innocent laypeople to be murdered in this country on an annual basis because some states are soft as baby shit on violent crime while simultaneously overly harsh on drug crime and petty offenses.

1