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

71–80 of 143 posts

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

#71

Post by kelnos »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #50
alkonaut wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. This guy was getting locked up no matter what. The only question was, was he getting locked up in a prison or in a psych ward? So do we trust psychiatry enough to say "lock him up here rather than there"? Sure. Do we trust them enough to say "It's safe to release him now"? That's a harder question.

An interesting point (raised by the article) is the term of imprisonment. If he hadn't gotten NGRI, but had gone to jail, and it wasn't a life-without-parole sentence, he would have been released eventually.

In the involuntary commitment case, is it reasonable to hold a person longer than what the equivalent prison sentence would be, even if the person is still considered mentally ill after the equivalent time?

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

#72

Post by kelnos »

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

I think that's a good point. We shouldn't judge a process based on the rare, outlying cases. We can't expect all of law to be perfect and do the right thing every time. Certainly there are levels of incorrectness that we don't want to live with, but we should expect that sometimes a guilty person will go free. And personally I would much rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be imprisoned or executed.

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

#73

Post by nerfhammer »

kelnos wrote: post #64
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.

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 recomm…

Would their doctor or pharmacist have to also take up the role of sort of parole officers?

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

#74

Post by limeblack »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #55

> 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…

My frustration with "mental health" is that many things like bipolar, schizophrenia and depression(even ADHD sometimes) are often viewed as incurable while also having no true litmus test. This talks about some of the issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuhJ-GkRRQc Not to mention the fact homosexuality used to be a mental illness. Prisoners are definitely no better considering then you have a criminal record for a while typically.

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

#75

Post by alkonaut »

IncRnd wrote: post #60
alkonaut wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doctors decided the person was clinically insane.

Yes it's hard to say someone is sane, and also rare. Which is why this is such a small problem - people aren't often declared sane and released if they committed serious crimes.

> 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.

No. It's literally the exact same evaluation. The reason it feels easier is because the stakes seem lower. Lock someone in prison or hospital? Big deal? When releasing, it's a risk assessment too. But the evaluation is exactly the same.

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

#76

Post by alkonaut »

kelnos wrote: post #71
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. This guy was getting locked up no matter what. The only question was, was he getting locked up in a prison or in a psych ward? So do we trust psychiatry enough to say "lock him up here rather than there"? Sure. Do we trust them enough to say "It's safe to release him now"? That's a harder question.

An interesting point (raised by the article) is the term of imprisonment. If he hadn't gotten NGRI, but had gone to jail, and it wasn't a life-without-parole sentence, he would have been released eventually. In the involuntary commitment case, is it reasonable to hold a person longer than what the equivalent prison sentence would be, even if the person is still considered mentally ill after the equivalent time?

I can only answer that for law where I live (Sweden) - the answer is a clear yes. Not only is it possible but it's likely/common.

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

#77

Post by xxxdarrenxxx »

xxxdarrenxxx wrote: post #65
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.

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…

There are people who are blind, deaf, have organ failure, have malformed limbs etc.

Yet we expect that people's brains have 99.9% succes rate, if our perspective sees fit.

..this is our GREATEST BIAS ever. And anyone with a brain (no pun) should consider themselves less than objective, if they think they or anyone else has anywhere near full control of their own brain.

A few simple example, but there are many;

- Try holding your breath untill you pass out, Your mind won't let you.

- Try to get rid of anxienty, just by thinking "anxiety off". ..never happened ever

- Go in a rollercoaster, and turn off your adrenaline function. How did that go?

- Remember that time you got drunk and didn't remember the night before?

But you did remember to navigate the road, walk towards your house, put the key in your door, walk to the correct room, and distinguish object bed from object chair, carpet, pc etc.

..but you don't know anything??

If your mind can do that without you at the helm, then why is it hard to see for some that control is more illusion than reality in many cases.

Even when the evidence is right in front off us. Our sense for acknowledgement, or better yet the fear that we might not have full control is so scary, we try to push control on ourselves to a point where we border denial and pride.

tldr; People only experience their own cognition, that they forget so many off our brain systems are out of our direct control and beyond our knowledge.

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

#78

Post by kelnos »

CocaKoala wrote: post #69
KGIII wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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;…

From Tom's perspective, that sentence may well have ended his life. The length of it was immaterial.

I'm sure he would have lost his scholarship as a convicted felon, and his admissions offer might have been rescinded too. There goes college entirely. Most jobs would also become unavailable to him with a felony on his record. Likely he'd be hired by someone who'd exploit him because they'd know he was basically unemployable and couldn't get a job elsewhere.

Meanwhile, he still has no money. Homelessness? Drugs? Petty (or worse) crime to feed and clothe himself? Back in the system at any rate, and unlikely to get back out.

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

#79

Post by ghurtado »

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.

Why do you assume this happened in the US?

Chances are good that it did, but to me it sounds like a story that could have taken place in just about any country in the world.

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

#80

Post by alkonaut »

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.

Doctors who claim someone id safe enough to release after treatment don't claim the person can't reoffend either. They say it's unlikely enough that it's not worth spending tax money holding them.

Obviously if someone is found lying they should be held responsible - but the released person reoffending does not make the evaluation willfully dishonest.

Post reply on HN