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

51–60 of 143 posts

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

#51

Post by [deleted] »

alkonaut wrote: post #48
KekDemaga wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Someone decided the person was insane to begin with. If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. Now, this is a nearly non existent problem isn't it? For major crimes, being locked up in psychiatric care is a longer, or indefinite sentence, than would be served in prison (this varies between countries of course).

[deleted]

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

#52

Post by erikbye »

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…

> Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself?

Perhaps there is a combined higher probability that one of your other neighbors will one day snap and go crazy than the medicated/or rehabilitated one doing so again. Unless you're not worried about that, but rather your "sensibilities are offended" by his action. Well, in that case, "the devil you know..."

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

#53

Post by IncRnd »

seiferteric wrote: post #14
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 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 absolutely agree.

My understanding is that prisons are said to have four purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.

However, in the absence of having prisons a society would likely create prisons to protect the people of society. My conclusion is that prisons are meant to protect the populace with those other reasons being secondary based upon cultural mores.

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

#54

Post by KGIII »

micheljones wrote: post #43
KGIII wrote: post #36

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…

Amerika, Amerika, the beautiful.

Coincidentally, the cop that shot him is the son of another friend of mine. We were in boot together and mostly stationed with each other.

His son now has PTSD and no longer serves on the police force. I believe he is getting some sort of check and unexpected to return to the force.

All for some clothing to fit in at university.

What a tangled skein.

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

#55

Post by thomastjeffery »

> people who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or who have been arrested but found incompetent to stand trial — are involuntarily confined to psychiatric hospitals.

Here, "psychiatric hospital" literally means "prison with carpets". There are locked doors instead of bars, and caretakers instead of guards, but it's a prison all the same.

My brother had a mental breakdown (not violent or criminal, but threatening enough to himself for police to be involved), and ended up in the state "hospital" for quite a while. I almost wish it was a prison instead, because at least prison is honest about what it is.

These "hospitals" may be necessary for some, but as soon as you walk inside, you take a deep dive into the uncanny valley, and you yourself begin to question your own sanity. I won't even try to imagine what it would be like to be thrown inside with no trial, and told that you can't leave unless you prove to your accusers that you are adequately "normal"

The worst thing about the situation is that my brother didn't believe or understand he was ill, and the state gave him every reason to be angry, and reject the situation, rather than come to terms with it.

Thankfully now, he is in an assisted living facility, is allowed to leave, and can feel more like a human being, but while he is very normal, functional, etc. he can't just go find work and go live his life. There doesn't seem to be an end game, and that alone is its own prison.

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

#56

Post by Sangermaine »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #47
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…

Where is the difference between 'I choose to do it' and 'I couldn't choose not to do it'? A lot of perceived differences between these I've seen others mention is based on free will, which is something science isn't sure even exists.

If you're responding to the parent's situation where someone causes violence due to mental issues leading to a loss of control, the latter may be treatable and curable, after which the threat is gone if the person, absent the mental issues that caused the loss of control, doesn't want to harm people. The former was a choice that may be made again, so is therefore always a threat even if they truly repent and are sorry for their choice.

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

#57

Post by occamrazor »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #47
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…

Where is the difference between 'I choose to do it' and 'I couldn't choose not to do it'? A lot of perceived differences between these I've seen others mention is based on free will, which is something science isn't sure even exists.

If free will does not exist, then also the prosecutors, judges and jury are not free, and there is no point deciding what they _should_ do. Hence it is safe to choose policies based on the assumption that free will exists.

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

#58

Post by belorn »

KekDemaga wrote: post #49
ska wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd ask those professionals be criminally liable if their assessment proves inaccurate. You mean like we do for DA's, parole boards, expert (court) testimony, etc. ?

Parole boards don't claim that empirically speaking the person to be released will never re-offend only that they have met the legal standards previously outlined for parole. Similarly a DA only attempts to prove to a jury that a defendant is guilty and it us their job to argue as much. If an expert witness claims something that is untrue he would be subject to perjury.

Technically, isn't that because anything else would practically impossible and yet we want to have concept like limited jail time and ex-prisoners who live non-criminal lives. In order to allow for such concept, we also allow a less than perfect results from DA's, parole boards, and courts.

If we want to have concept like people being cured of medical conditions, then we must also accept that doctors will make imperfect distinction between healthy and sick.

The question society must make is how far we can accept that mistakes happen, and what safe guards we impose to handle the situations when someone fails.

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

#59

Post by IncRnd »

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…

The doctors are likely professionals, but why do you believe the doctors are trustworthy professionals?

There is science, and there is Science.

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

#60

Post by IncRnd »

alkonaut wrote: post #48
KekDemaga wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Someone decided the person was insane to begin with. If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. Now, this is a nearly non existent problem isn't it? For major crimes, being locked up in psychiatric care is a longer, or indefinite sentence, than would be served in prison (this varies between countries of course).

> If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too.

That's not true. Doctors didn't make a decision to lock up the individual.

It's much easier to say that someone who executed other people is crazy than it is to say that person's craziness and tendencies toward evil have been cured.

Post reply on HN