|
|
Post by rebeccah on May 10, 2016 6:55:25 GMT
Insanity plea. This is such a common legal defense in so many criminal cases and has actually succeeded in more than a few. For example, John Hinckley Jr., who attempted the assassination of President Reagan and severely injured Secret Service Agent, James Brady, plead insanity and was found not guilty. Instead of getting the death penalty or life imprisonment, he is still institutionalized to this day, but gets visits outside of the institution, despite the horrific crime he committed. Read about some other notorious cases that used the insanity plea here: listverse.com/2012/04/11/top-10-most-notorious-insanity-defense-cases/ For me, this is a tricky debate. On one hand, mental illness as we’ve learned really is a serious issue and can’t be helped in some people, but in many cases, the insanity plea is abused. Few mentally sane people would commit such atrocities that would result in death or life imprisonment, so who’s to say which ones are insane and which are not? Further, if there was a way to prevent these behaviors by recognizing risk factors at a young age, as described in the study on predicting future arrests and the criminal brain scans, should we use it? The biggest issue here is the ethics behind it. At what age should it be ok to begin trying to prevent potential future crimes? For example, at age 3, the child is not yet old enough to fully understand what is going on to be able to consent, so should it be allowed to do brain scans and try to prevent these atrocities that may never even occur? In short, to what extent do you think the insanity plea is plausible/do you think it should be used in the court of law? If there was a way to prevent crime at a young age do you think we should do it, even if it’s at the risk of the child’s chance at a normal life? If so, what kinds of preventative measures could be taken that might not be as invasive as a surgery? |
|
paola
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by paola on May 11, 2016 3:55:44 GMT
I agree with you - this is a very tricky debate. In my opinion, a crime is a crime. But when you have to factor in the possible fact that the criminal was not mentally present during the crime, how is one supposed to judge him or her rightfully innocent or guilty? From the victim’s perspective, or his or her family’s perspective, the criminal should be deemed guilty; to them, because a part of their family has been negatively affected, it doesn’t matter if the criminal was mentally present during the incident. A crime is a crime, and the criminal must face punishment. From the criminal’s perspective, however, he or she should be deemed innocent; if he/she wasn’t in control and it just happened, how is it his or her fault? From the general public’s perspective, opinions vary.
I myself cannot think of where I stand on this issue. For me, my opinion would vary case by case. In Hinckley’s case, I think being institutionalized for life is a form of imprisonment. So in this case, I would agree with the insanity plea. If Hinckley walked away being a free man, then that would be a different story.
If there were a way to prevent these behaviors by recognizing risk factors at a young age, I think we should use the method. The method may end up serving the victims well in the long run by receiving support and help at an early stage of the illness’ development, in hopes of maybe ridding it before it turns into a more severe case.
|
|
|
|
Post by cliffordzhang on May 11, 2016 20:55:50 GMT
I think I read somewhere that the criteria to meet the insanity plea is that the criminal must not possess the cognitive abilities to understand the magnitude of the crime. That being said, I still the insanity plea is really tricky because what's to stop any criminal from just pretending to be insane. Sure there are "tests" to diagnose mental disorders, but the majority of them are subjective.
I think it's really difficult if not impossible to prevent crime at a young age. The justice system knows this and that is why kids who have not matured cognitively are tried differently than adults, who are believed to have a full control of their mental status. But honestly, I don't think the issue of of preventing crime at a young age is a problem that we should be too focused on. The vast majority of crimes are committed by adults still.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorthompson on May 11, 2016 21:03:27 GMT
I think the insanity plea is difficult because one could make the argument that anyone who commits a serious crime is insane. Why is it that for some murderers we believe they deserve punishment while for other they deserve institutionalization? Where do we draw the line between someone who has serious malicious intent and someone who is simply mentally ill?
|
|
|
|
Post by melody7song on May 11, 2016 22:06:33 GMT
I think the insanity plea is really interesting--it can be used well and legitimately, but when it is abused, it can be extremely frustrating. Like Clifford said, what's to stop any criminal from faking insanity?
That being said, in the case of the Colorado shooting where James Holmes went into a movie theatre and murdered innocent people, Holmes pleaded "not guilty by reason of insanity." The crazy part was the contrast between the two resulting consequences. If his insanity plea worked, Holmes would be committed to a state psychiatric hospital. If not, his sentence could be life without parole or the death penalty. Ultimately, his insanity plea was rejected, and he was sentenced to life without parole.
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by rkipp on May 11, 2016 23:41:16 GMT
I agree with paola, a crime is a crime, no matter who committed it. If someone is murdered, that person is gone forever, regardless of the mental state of the murderer, and thus the murderer should be punished. And while I also agree with your point that mental illness is a very serious issue and can't be helped in some people, I think it is more important to figure out how to help the mentally ill and make sure they do not get put in such situations where they are capable of committing such crimes. I think if society approaches the problem from the core (helping mentally ill) then hopefully crime and insanity pleas will lessen as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on May 12, 2016 2:24:44 GMT
These are all really valid points. With such a highly contested topic as this, it's hard to choose what is right because the difference between right and wrong may not always be black and white. That being said, I agree that each crime should be taken case by case. Further, when it comes to what I was discussing with preventing crimes with children, I was simply referring to whether or not we should take preventative measures to try and prevent crimes they may commit as adults.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 12, 2016 4:42:44 GMT
I watch a lot of Law and Order: SVU, and this same debate is brought up a multitude of episodes. However, from what I have seen, when people accused of a crime are actually insane, they are quick to deny it. An insane person does not actually want to admit that they are insane in many of the cases I have seen on the show. However, when a criminal does not seem to actually be insane, they will take on the title immediately just to reduce their sentence and not actually be sent to jail. I know this is not how all cases would go, but maybe accepting an insanity plea like it's nothing is a sign that this criminal is just using his get out of jail free card.
|
|
|
|
Post by petekk on May 12, 2016 5:00:33 GMT
This questions is extremely hard to answer. There is really no ethical road to take since leaving a crime unpunished and imprisoning a person who needs medical help are equally unethical. I think we should seek the answer in somewhere other than law enforcement. Something more preventative that provides control of mentally unstable individuals without opening the door for abuse is needed. Health Care reform can be a good place to start. We know that economic difficulties also make people more prone to crime so when it is added on top of being mentally unstable it creates a more risky situation. Most poor families refrain from getting help from psychiatric services because they can't afford it. While under treatment they can be observed and controlled (crisis can be managed by their doctor, they are forced to take their medication etc), they usually go unnoticed and things worsen. Providing mentally unstable people wit required resources can be a good place to start to prevent this kind of dilemmas.
|
|
