Insanity defense for criminals

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:18 am

Vote and let us know what you think. Very Happy

registered · Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:11 pm

I think the insanty defense is abused so much. It makes me sick to my stomach.

It is just blaming things on something other than that fact someone did something evil.

People don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:10 pm

To me being insane is no defense. If you kill someone because you are insane and they don't put you in jail or a hospital ... what's going to stop you from killing again? Nothing!

To me if someone commits a crime and are insane they should be put in a mental hospital until not insane so they can stand trial. Of course I'm talking about crimes against people. Crimes against property are a different story. I’m talking about the big ones .. murder .. rape … slavery .. things like that.

But getting off totally because of a mental defect is no answer!

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:17 pm

But surely, the fact that if you are insane means you are not, in law, responsible for your actions - rgo the physical body is being punished for something it had no control over.

I think that, if anyone uses the defence of criminal insanity, then the 'experts' should also be asked, when/if they think the person would regain his/her sanity. That way then can either stand trial again or if they are 'no-hopers' they should get put to sleep and save us all the taxes to look after them and also put them out of what must be, a pretty miserable existance.

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:36 pm

People are put on trial for things their physical body did not do all the time. Facilitation can get you 25 years depending on what you are facilitating.

The purpose of law (at least when it first started) was to hold people to a set of standards. Even the simple; Thou shall not kill. It wasn’t Thou shall not kill, unless you were PMSing at the time. Or you were in a alter reality in your mind. Being able to understand these standards was not part of the equation. Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you. Why, because the law is suppose to protect the masses. It’s not suppose to have feeling or understanding. If people are insane and allowed to continue to break laws, then there is no protection for the masses.

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:48 am

So what would your definition of insane be?
I hope it is something other than 'mentaly unstable' becsue one in four of the worlds population has a psychological problem according to recent figures published.

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:00 am

Ya but being mentaly unstable doesn't mean you are going to comit a crime ... but it shouldn't be an excuse if you did.

In the eyes of the law everyone should be treated equal. Doesn't matter if your male-female, black-while, sane-insane ... everyone should be treated equal.

Client Joined: Apr 10, 2004 Posts: 649 Location: UK

I think it's too easy for people to plead insanity. It's the easy way out, they know they can pull the wool over the eyes of the so called experts, like psychiatrists.

My husband's mentally ill, has been for a few years, and I've seen quite a few people in that time that are blatantly pretending to be mentally ill just to get out of working, and screwing the system for as much in benefits as they can.

I go in with my husband when he see's the psychiatrist and to be truthful, you could tell him anything and he'd believe it. We don't obviously, but I can see how easy it is for people who are not mentally ill to make out they are.

If someone murders another person, whether insane or sane, they should be treated the same.

However, what happens if someone under the influence of drugs comits murder? They're not responsible for their actions, because they're stoned out of their minds, but they're still capable of killing someone.

Interesting subject Webby.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:12 am

That was going to be my next point Muffin Smile

But you braught it up first.

If someone is under the influence of something (drugs, booze, whatever) and they kill someone, even if they don't remember it, they stand trial just like anyone else. They had no clue they ran little Johnny over with their car and killed them. But they still get the ticket to prison.

In my mind there is NO defense for murder.

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:04 pm

If they're under the influence of anything like drugs or booze I think they should stand trial for murder, it was their choice to take the drugs or booze, and they were not forced into it.

I agree, with you. If someone takes another life they should pay with their own.

Life is far too cheap these days. People get killed for a few pence in their purse.

New Member Joined: May 11, 2005 Posts: 4

Well, I dont know about in America, but I'm in Australia and am doing a report on this topic.
In Queensland, if someone appears to be insane (and are charged with a criminal offence) they go to a mental health tribunal, who decide if they can stand trial or not. If not, they go to a mental institution, and stay there until it is decided they are fit enough to stand trial.
People pleading insanity sometimes end up in hospital for longer than they would be in jail, and its also very difficult to prove insanity - the cours have taken a very narrow approach.
I think it's reasonable to have an insanity defence, because instead of people with problems simply being thrown into jail, with no help, they are in a hospital and could possibly be treated. Also, if it is a serious crime and the accused is released from hospital within 7 years, they may still have to stand trial.
One more thing - insanity is classed as a person not knowing what they are doing, not being able to control their actions or not knowing that what they are doing is wrong.

Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 6:00 am

Using the definition that 'smiles' mentioned, I think it would be very difficult to prove someone 'did not know what they were doing was srong' - but I guess it depends on the circumstances of the offence.

Here in the UK we have a slightly different approach because the Judges are dumber than dumb!
If you want to commit murder, you use a car and make sure you are drunk. Kill someone with a gun, knife or any other deadly weapon (exept a car) an its a 25+ year stretch for murder.
Have a drink, get behind the wheel and run someone over killing them and its a 5 to 15 stretch for manslaughter or if the Judge is in a really good mood, you might make "reckless driving" which will give you 3 to 10 (usually 5) with a fine.
However said 'the law is an ass' sure wasnt kidding!

So with time off for good behaviour, someone who ran a small child over, whilst DUI and kiled them might get out in 5 years or less - obsurd!!

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:32 am

Well, in Australia, people are now saying they should be able to sue the pub that makes them drunk if they hurt themselves on the way home. I mean, it's their choice to buy the drinks, to get wasted, and to walk out the door drunk, but if they trip over and hurt themselves badly, or step in front of a car, they are saying it's the pub's fault and they should be able to sue.
It's just CRAZY!!!! Nobody takes responsibility for their own actions any more - when something goes wrong, make sure you find someone invovled in some distant way and get money off them.

Involved Joined: Apr 05, 2006 Posts: 263

if you take drugs in uk you still go down for it and found guilty.

if you clam your (fast majority of the time)insane they know your lieing, but if they think you are you see four different phsycatrist if it 3 outa four think god told you something
like kill someone, you will do twice as long in a physco ward as if you stood trail for it without saying your insane, so that would be fruitless and you would get the help you wanted, which in my opinion is good for everyone.

as for drink driving they are heavily going for murder no matter what, and i should think it will be that way pritty soon, because of the amount of inocent people killed on the news latley . press pressure is good sometimes