Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#31

Post by snuxoll »

dpatrick86 wrote: post #18
snuxoll wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he being monitored to ensure he stays on his regimen of medication? Is he having regular psychiatric evaluations, and has a psychiatrist deemed him NOT a threat to himself and others? If YES to ALL of the above, I have no problem with it. After a period of being monitored then remove the restrictions. This is one of the biggest issues we have in this country, our prison system is used to make up for a lack of ment…

Interesting hypothetical: maybe the state should pay someone with an open mind (like you) handsomely to have him as a new roommate and keep an eye on him.

If I was still single and childless I'd do it. Wouldn't even need to be "handsomely", just enough to cover expenses.

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#32

Post by snuxoll »

alkonaut wrote: post #9
joecool1029 wrote: post #6

In Canada they get treatment and are set free without restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean#Aftermat...

Isn't that the case everywhere? But the catch is that you aren't set free until you are considered cured and/or safe to set free. For many, this means never.

Unfortunate reality is some mental disease can't be effectively treated, if you can't clear the barrier of "not a danger to self or others" then it's best for society to keep a patient isolated from it.

Still, our history with mental health facilities shows that we have a less than stellar reputation of actually treating individuals - wouldn't surprise me if to this day there are still people locked up in these places that SHOULD be capable of release.

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#33

Post by turbulents »

cscheid wrote: post #25
mabbo wrote: post #7

There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Basically, the man went into an absolute psychotic state on the travelling bus and cut the head off a stranger while everyone else on the bus ran for their lives. A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication, but people are very upset that he'd ever be free at all. In interviews, he's a very interesting person…

> It's the extreme end of the situation, to be certain, but extremes are a great place to examine any system. Although there's some dissent, in law the typical expression you hear is the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

The converse (bad law makes hard cases) resonates more with me--glad it's mentioned in the article.

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#34

Post by nradov »

dmix wrote: post #2

> In most states, like New York, there is no limit to the duration of that commitment. Couldn't the supreme court rule this type of punishment as "cruel and unusual punishment"? Technically there is a policy of reviewing "every 2 years" in perpetuity, so it's not like they don't have a formal punishment. They mention a Supreme Court ruling regarding "due process" but not the 8th amendment. So it's basically as if thi…

Involuntary commitment is handled through the civil court system and isn't technically considered a "punishment" under criminal law.

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#35

Post by jrochkind1 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28
seiferteric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting because different people and different countries seem to have different ideas about he purpose of the the justice system. Punishment/retribution, correction/rehabilitation, or protecting the public. Someone like this may not be guilty due to insanity, but still be a danger to the public for example.

I believe violent versus non-violent crimes should be treated distinctly in terms of evaluating (a) rehabilitation and (b) future offense odds. For non-violent crime, I think rehabilitation is the answer. For violent crime, I'm more comfortable with a model that involves sequestration, i.e. keeping the offender separate from society until their risk of re-offending falls suitably low.

I'm not sure prison is likely to lower anyone's risk of re-offending, alas.

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#36

Post by KGIII »

Tom, name made up, is a friend of mine. Sort of... I knew Tom for only a short while but I still write him letters and send him a few dollars every couple of weeks.

When Tom was just 18, he had finished school and was headed off to a large university on a sports scholarship. Not having any money, and coming from a poor family, he looked forward to this. It was going to be his big break.

But, Tom needed a wardrobe fit for a nice university. So, Tom went to the mall and proceeded to steal some clothing. Security tried to stop Tom so he pushed the security guard and ran away.

Tom, of course, went to jail. The DA offered Tom a 30 day sentence in a plea agreement and Tom, deciding his life was over, took a razor blade and cut his own throat.

Tom's 30 day sentence resulted in 10 years in a State mental hospital. Curiously, when he was released from the mental hospital, they still made him serve his 30 days.

Tom, now having nothing and a giant scar where normal skin once was, tried to meander through life as best as he could. This is where I met Tom. Tom loved drinking and doing drugs. His childhood years of experimentation had been lost to the system and Tom was making up for that. Tom and I had good times. I eventually moved on and no longer spent time with Tom. I'm not sure who was a worse influence on who, but that's immaterial and a story for another time.

One day, Tom had had enough. He just wasn't going to function and decided to end it all. He went down to the facility where he normally met his providers and took someone hostage. This, of course, resulted in the police being called.

Tom, for all his brilliance, was having none of it. The police came through the door and Tom attacked the first one through the door with his knife.

I'd like to say he put up a good fight, that he gave a good showing, and that he fought long and hard. No, he did no such thing. Cops being cops, Tom hadn't made it more than a couple of steps before they shot him.

Tom survived and is now back in that same State hospital. His letters tell me that he is even back in the same room. He expects to remain there for the rest of his life and likes to think he was sane, but just desperate, when the shoplifting occurred. He strongly suspects the system has made him even less sane and even more unstable. He seems to be okay with spending his life there.

All for some clothing to fit in at university...

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#37

Post by nybblet »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28
seiferteric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting because different people and different countries seem to have different ideas about he purpose of the the justice system. Punishment/retribution, correction/rehabilitation, or protecting the public. Someone like this may not be guilty due to insanity, but still be a danger to the public for example.

I believe violent versus non-violent crimes should be treated distinctly in terms of evaluating (a) rehabilitation and (b) future offense odds. For non-violent crime, I think rehabilitation is the answer. For violent crime, I'm more comfortable with a model that involves sequestration, i.e. keeping the offender separate from society until their risk of re-offending falls suitably low.

The comment is not saying that prison will lower the risk of re-offending, but that it will lower the risk of impacting other people until the risk of re-offending falls suitably low (e.g. due to other means like treatment).

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#38

Post by chc »

dmix wrote: post #2

> In most states, like New York, there is no limit to the duration of that commitment. Couldn't the supreme court rule this type of punishment as "cruel and unusual punishment"? Technically there is a policy of reviewing "every 2 years" in perpetuity, so it's not like they don't have a formal punishment. They mention a Supreme Court ruling regarding "due process" but not the 8th amendment. So it's basically as if thi…

Nobody's "pretending" they aren't being punished — they were found not guilty, so there legally isn't even anything to punish them for. Instead, they're being treated for self-professed insanity. I think that's why it's framed as a due process question.

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#39

Post by jrochkind1 »

nradov wrote: post #34
dmix wrote: post #2

> In most states, like New York, there is no limit to the duration of that commitment. Couldn't the supreme court rule this type of punishment as "cruel and unusual punishment"? Technically there is a policy of reviewing "every 2 years" in perpetuity, so it's not like they don't have a formal punishment. They mention a Supreme Court ruling regarding "due process" but not the 8th amendment. So it's basically as if thi…

Involuntary commitment is handled through the civil court system and isn't technically considered a "punishment" under criminal law.

Changing the words (or even set of laws) you use to apply to something doesn't exempt it from constitutional scrutiny.

But I wouldn't want to bet on the supreme court deciding anything about this is unconstitutional, they haven't been inclined to in similar situations when it has come before them.

Re: What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

#40

Post by KekDemaga »

alkonaut wrote: post #15
mabbo wrote: post #7

There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Basically, the man went into an absolute psychotic state on the travelling bus and cut the head off a stranger while everyone else on the bus ran for their lives. A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication, but people are very upset that he'd ever be free at all. In interviews, he's a very interesting person…

> But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not? I can't see how it's different to live next to someone who is cured after 10 years of treatment, as opposed to say someone who was in prison for 10 years for the same crime (Where I live this would likely be considered more s…

>Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not?

Psychology as a science is remarkable in its inability to make accurate predictions. I'd ask those professionals be criminally liable if their assessment proves inaccurate.

Post reply on HN