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

61–70 of 143 posts

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

#61

Post by JumpCrisscross »

elevensies wrote: post #46
jrochkind1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It may lower everyone's risk of re-offending by making them older when they get out: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309... (via https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309... ) Although I guess it would make more sense to be looking at a chart of 2nd offences.

This is what I was getting at. Keep them sequestered until they’re statistically unlikely to cause further harm. This doesn’t work if you’re locking up pot smokers. It does if you limit long-term prison sentences to violent offenders (and maybe corruption).

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

#62

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> which is something science isn't sure even exists.

“Free will” isn't something “science isn't sure even exists”, it is instead fundamentally incompatible with the model of reality which is required by science.

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

#63

Post by pnathan »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #13

You've got to get the ordinary man into the state in which he says 'Sadism' automatically when he hears the word Punishment." And then one would have carte blanche. Mark did not immediately follow this. But the Fairy pointed out that what had hampered every English police force up to date was precisely the idea of deserved punishment. For desert was always finite: you could do so much to the criminal and no more. Rem…

Lewis did put his finger on a nasty little quality of modern man with that quote. I don't know that the Hideous Strength is a good book - it's positively regressive in quite too many ways - but that quote there could stand to be put in plaques in many offices as a caution.

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

#64

Post by kelnos »

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.

The thing that I worry about in these cases is the lack of "enforceability" of treatment. If keeping the person in control of themselves (such that they don't become violent again) means they need to be on medication for the rest of their lives, how do we ensure (post-release) that they'll always be on their meds?

I know of people on various medications for psychiatric reasons that have (against their doctor's recommendation) gone off their meds because they didn't like the side-effects. That might be fine (if unfortunate/difficult) for a mental illness that doesn't drive the sufferer to violence, but in the case where it does, how can you responsibly release someone if you don't have a mechanism to ensure they stay on their medication?

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

#65

Post by xxxdarrenxxx »

KekDemaga wrote: post #40
alkonaut wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are multiple factors at hand.

For example, soldiers kill people, because it's "war" or they have "orders" or it's "the just way to deal with things".

If they'd kill the same person on the streets as a civilian, everyone would be disgusted and angry. Yet for it's former reason people feel the need to give medals and applaud.

You should think about this really hard for a second.

Our minds are not entirely our own, and simple cognitive pushes here and there can change our entire perspective just like that, while OBJECTIVELY it's still a dead human in this particular example.

With that said, one should not seek black and white answers in this concept. Mentall illnesses and for that matter the law system are dynamic and constantly in motion.

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

#66

Post by jimmies »

nodesocket wrote: post #23

Just finished Manhunt: Unabomber[1] on Netflix. According to the show, it was Ted Kaczynski's entire defense to rebuttal his charges saying forensic linguistics and the FBI agent who "cracked" the case had no precedent. The agent was in fact a traffic cop before becoming an FBI agent and had little formal linguistics training. Instead Ted's defense behind his back went with insanity and tried to get him to plead to "…

I have read his manifesto. That was actually not a bad read at all. I think some of the circuits in his brain was damaged and not functioning right, but certainly not all of it. Most of the points he brought up is logical and still applies till today.

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

#67

Post by kelnos »

KekDemaga wrote: post #40
alkonaut wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I'd ask those professionals be criminally liable if their assessment proves inaccurate.

If that became the case, no one would be released, ever.

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

#68

Post by justinator »

nodesocket wrote: post #23

Just finished Manhunt: Unabomber[1] on Netflix. According to the show, it was Ted Kaczynski's entire defense to rebuttal his charges saying forensic linguistics and the FBI agent who "cracked" the case had no precedent. The agent was in fact a traffic cop before becoming an FBI agent and had little formal linguistics training. Instead Ted's defense behind his back went with insanity and tried to get him to plead to "…

I thought it was his Brother who noticed the handwriting from different letters (sent to him, sent to others) was basically the same.

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

#69

Post by CocaKoala »

KGIII wrote: post #54
micheljones wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mention the clothing to fit in at university like that's the place where the story went all wrong, but 30 days in jail for shoplifting (which may or may not be an unreasonable sentence) is certainly not a life-ending affair, and definitely not something you should take a razor blade to your throat over. It seems like Tom was exhibiting some unstable behavior even before he got trapped in the system for 10 years; the clothes seem much more like a symptom than a cause here.

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

#70

Post by dmix »

chc wrote: post #38
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.

Regardless most of them did in fact do a serious crime and many openly admit it or there is plenty of evidence. The fact the prosecution is accepting a non-guilty plea in obviously winnable criminal trials is merely part of the "pretending" involved in a scheme to jail people indefinitely and push them into civil trials without constitutional protection.

This is merely legal theatrics and these people are being punished. If these facilities were at least decent places to stay I wouldn't care as much. But they are held essentially in a prison with nurses, indefinitely, regardless of their original offence. Probably with more restrictions than prison. The guy couldn't even get an extra sugar in his tea without a big ordeal...

This is something that needs to be handled through a formal process. Why not give them a real sentence in a medical facility, then when it's done if they are still not 'ready to go back into the public' due to public safety, via a panel of doctors, then have another process with it's own means and standards which have to be passed (within the scope of criminal law) with a bar high enough appropriate to the punishment.

This is not without significant costs to the public either... those doctors, lawyers, courts, and law enforcement involved are extremely expensive and there are more than enough better uses for these resources than getting some emotional gratification of locking people away for little societal ROI.

Post reply on HN