Innocent by Insanity

[Voice of Reason]

I don't believe there should be in the law a term "innocent by reason of insanity". I don't believe anyone is ever innocent by reason of insanity. I prefer the term "Guilty but Insane". Maybe it is just semantics but it would really bug me if someone I cared about was a victim of a crime and the person is declared "innocent by reason of insanity". If the person commits the crime, they are guilty. Period.

 

Furthermore, if someone is found guilty but insane, I believe they should be sentenced as if they were not insane. Then they can go to a place to be treated for their mental illness until they are declared normal. Once they are declared recovered or normal, then they have to go to prison to finish the term of their sentence.

 

Bottom line - insanity will never get you out of the crime you commit. It will only determine how you serve your time.

[wkyColonel]

In Kentucky, the closest term would be Guilty but Mentally Ill.

 

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19692

 

From a criminal defense prospective, it isn't used too much in Western KY at trial. There is a very fine line to walk of trying to explain a defendant's mental problems while not necessarily making excuses for their actions.

 

It doesn't affect a defendant's sentence but does leave open the possibility of required treatment to some degree.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19694

[Beechwoodfan]

VOR, I find your comments very interesting, and agree with most of what you say, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the following scenarios:

 

Young man, aged 17, beats a family member to death. Turns out he is a paranoid schizophrenic, never treated because his family missed or ignored his symptoms.

 

A 20 year old, with diagnosed schizophrenia, refuses to take his medication and kills a family member.

 

I think the first case has a lot more weight for NGRI, versus the second case. If you know you have a problem, but refuse to control it, it is on you IMO, but there are real cases where it is a valid defense.

 

In the end though, as you said, the punishments are usually the same.

 

I would like to add that most people with true mental illness are not violent at all.

[Voice of Reason]

^ Those situations certainly bring a perspective to the discussion. However, the facts are someone was killed. The person who killed them is guilty of murder. The mental health conditions can be used as mitigating circumstances to determine the sentence and rehabilitation method. But those conditions do not change the facts that someone was killed, and they are guilty of the killing.

[InItToWinIt]

I agree, if you committed the crime you are guilty and should be punished. If you are "innocent by insanity," then you need to go to a mental institution but should still receive some sort of punishment (visitor limitations, etc.).

 

Slippery slope though depending on the severity of the mental illness.

[BirdBrain]

VOR, I find your comments very interesting, and agree with most of what you say, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the following scenarios:

 

Young man, aged 17, beats a family member to death. Turns out he is a paranoid schizophrenic, never treated because his family missed or ignored his symptoms.

 

A 20 year old, with diagnosed schizophrenia, refuses to take his medication and kills a family member.

 

I think the first case has a lot more weight for NGRI, versus the second case. If you know you have a problem, but refuse to control it, it is on you IMO, but there are real cases where it is a valid defense.

 

In the end though, as you said, the punishments are usually the same.

 

I would like to add that most people with true mental illness are not violent at all.

 

On what basis do you make this assertion ?

[rockmom]

On what basis do you make this assertion ?

 

If I'm not mistaken, BWF is in the mental health treatment field, bases on previous posts.

[lawildcat]

If I'm not mistaken, BWF is in the mental health treatment field, bases on previous posts.

 

So is BirdBrain....

 

:popcorn:

[Getslow]

Yes, it's semantics.

 

The term isn't in widespread use but reflects a growth in the understanding of mental illness. Nearly every crime has two basic elements: the actus reus and the mens rea. How do we demonstrate that mens rea in a person whose mental states are subject to chemical imbalances, delusions, or blackouts? Given the nature of mental illness, how do we assign malice, or purpose, or intent, to someone whose mind doesn't work the way it should?

 

We may not be able to call them innocent, but it's just as difficult to call them guilty.

[All Tell]

Yes, it's semantics.

 

The term isn't in widespread use but reflects a growth in the understanding of mental illness. Nearly every crime has two basic elements: the actus reus and the mens rea. How do we demonstrate that mens rea in a person whose mental states are subject to chemical imbalances, delusions, or blackouts? Given the nature of mental illness, how do we assign malice, or purpose, or intent, to someone whose mind doesn't work the way it should?

 

We may not be able to call them innocent, but it's just as difficult to call them guilty.

 

I understand what you're saying and agree to an extent but those people that are proven profoundly mentally ill should never see the light of day again. John Hinkley jumps to mind. The fact that he was disturbed enough to attempt to kill a president in order to impress a celebrity he was obsessed with tells me he can never be considered fully "cured". Yet if I'm not mistaken there"s serious talk about releasing him.

[Beechwoodfan]

On what basis do you make this assertion ?

 

15 years working with some of the most mentally ill people you can imagine. To be clear, many are very violent, but given the broad spectrum of mental illnesses, most are not.

[BirdBrain]

15 years working with some of the most mentally ill people you can imagine. To be clear, many are very violent, but given the broad spectrum of mental illnesses, most are not.

 

I think that stating "most" with "true" mental illness is misleading. Certain types of mental illnesses are much more prone to violence than others. The problem with the process is that "many" go undiagnosed as having a mental illness and society views their behaviors through a "healthy" lens.

 

"True" mental illness is always on a continuum of behavior and more often than not violent offenders have been misdiagnosed or missed in the diagnosis of their condition.

[Beechwoodfan]

I think that stating "most" with "true" mental illness is misleading. Certain types of mental illnesses are much more prone to violence than others. The problem with the process is that "many" go undiagnosed as having a mental illness and society views their behaviors through a "healthy" lens.

 

"True" mental illness is always on a continuum of behavior and more often than not violent offenders have been misdiagnosed or missed in the diagnosis of their condition.

 

All chronic illnesses are on a continuum.

 

Just telling you my experience. Mental illness is much more prevalent than most people know, and of the thousands I have worked with sick enough to be hospitalized, most are not violent. This does not take into account those who are successfully treated as an outpatients with very few hospitalizations.

 

So, when I say that most mentally ill people are not violent, I mean those people diagnosed with a mental illness by a trained psychiatrist.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Beechwoodfan