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

81–90 of 143 posts

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

#81

Post by kelnos »

dmix wrote: post #70
chc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 punis…

> 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.

I was thinking about this, but the numbers don't support this interpretation. It seems like involuntary commitment post-NGRI would be a place rife for abuse, and yet such a tiny tiny tiny fraction of criminal cases go that way. You'd think the number would be much higher if prosecutors wanted to use NGRI for nefarious purposes.

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

#82

Post by alkonaut »

IncRnd wrote: post #59
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…

The doctors are likely professionals, but why do you believe the doctors are trustworthy professionals? There is science, and there is Science.

Not sure what we are discussing - if doctors can decide someone as being disturbed and dangerous then they by definition can also decide that they are not.

Now, this is obviously a hard and delicate problem when it comes to the releasing part of the equation.

But the argument that they are either incapable or untrustworthy to make the judgment doesn't fly - why were they capable and trustworthy when locking someone up then?

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

#83

Post by kelnos »

stevenwoo wrote: post #8
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…

Do you consider it much different from the practice of denying parole when convicts continue to profess innocence instead of professing contriteness? If someone is really innocent, they are in the catch 22 of staying in prison for life because parole boards deny release but if they just lie and pretend to feel contrite they get out on parole right away after serving time. There was a case on NPR recently but there's…

The thing about that is, in practical terms, the prisoners are making a terrible choice by sticking to their guns. They options are:

1) Keep professing innocence and stay in prison.

2) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out.

3) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out... and then work to retroactively exonerate yourself, when you're on the outside and actually have some chance of doing so without a lucky guardian angel taking interest in your case while you're in prison.

There are no legal ramifications to "admitting" guilt and expressing remorse. You already have the conviction on your record, so in the eyes of the law, you committed the crime, end of story.

I'm sympathetic to the parole board here, to be honest (which feels really weird to say). While they of course know abstractly that some innocent people are in jail and shouldn't be, they don't have much to go on when it comes to the prisoner in front of them. They have the prisoner's conviction record, without enough context to make a guilty/not-guilty call of their own (and do we even want them making a call along those lines?), and their purpose is to determine if the potential parolee is likely to re-offend. They have to assume the conviction record is correct, or it's basically impossible for them to do their job. And if it is correct, and the prisoner professes innocence, they can't responsibly say that releasing them is a good idea.

Beyond that, if the prisoner is indeed innocent, there is a process for dealing with that outside the parole process. It's not perfect, and it's difficult for a prisoner to gain access, and I'm sure could stand to see some large improvements, but the parole process just isn't the place to get your sentence reduced because you actually are innocent.

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

#84

Post by KGIII »

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;…

The criminal conviction was going to mean a lost scholarship.

At no point in the story is there not something that can't be criticized. From the cost of education, to feeling the need to dress in accordance to a certain style, to the razor having been used in an unobserved manner, and the rest.

Not one part of that story can be free of criticism and seeing better solutions and preferable outcomes.

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

#85

Post by dmix »

kelnos wrote: post #81
dmix wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 punis…

> 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. I was thinking about this, but the numbers don't support this interpretation. It seems like involuntary commitment post-NGRI would be a place rife for abuse, and yet such a…

If this is a predictable process that will result in what is essentially equivalent to a 'wrongful conviction' then as far as I'm concerned it's worth it to revise the process.

Whether it's a hundred or a thousand I don't see the rationale being any different here. This system seems entirely intentional to me (for very understandable human reasons but ultimately wrong reasons), it's not just an unfortunate side-effect.

I know public services and human effort is a matter of finite resources and prioritization, but there are plenty of human hours involved in each of these cases, from judges to doctors to the victims of the crime, it is not a lot to ask for them to stop bypassing the system and put them through a formal process within the context of their crime.

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

#86

Post by CocaKoala »

KGIII wrote: post #84
CocaKoala wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 criminal conviction was going to mean a lost scholarship. At no point in the story is there not something that can't be criticized. From the cost of education, to feeling the need to dress in accordance to a certain style, to the razor having been used in an unobserved manner, and the rest. Not one part of that story can be free of criticism and seeing better solutions and preferable outcomes.

Ah, I hadn't considered how the scholarship would interact with the sentence. Thank you for pointing that out.

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

#87

Post by lazyasciiart »

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…

Mechanisms to enforce medication usage in the community do exist, usually by in-person visits to supervise taking medication. One such program is the "Assertive Community Treatment" model that exists in a couple different places in the US, here's a report from the King County (WA) group: http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/health/mentalHealth/Docume...

I think the actual 'enforcement' in the way you are thinking would be backed up with some kind of court ruling that they were required to take the medication, I'm not so sure how that angle would work.

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

#88

Post by CocaKoala »

kelnos wrote: post #78
CocaKoala wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unemp…

> convicted felon

You're probably correct that he would have lost the scholarship, but shoplifting is not a felony and if he's getting thirty days in jail, I don't think he's being convicted of a felony assault on the guard or something.

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

#89

Post by cm2012 »

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…

Agreed. Years ago, my wife made a suicide attempt that I stopped. We agreed together to go to the psych hospital after for evaluation. It was a mistake. They forcibly kept her for 3 days. She has a huge anxiety about being trapped places since she was neglected and abandoned as a kid. It didn't prevent her from hurting herself any more than she would have, and made things much worse afterwords because it was traumatic. You have absolutely no control or agency once you're inside. I would never bring her back under any circumstances.

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

#90

Post by IncRnd »

alkonaut wrote: post #75
IncRnd wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sam…

> Yes it's hard to say someone is sane, and also rare.

> 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.

You said I was wrong, and then wrote text that supported my comment.

It doesn't matter if the evaluation is the same. The state of sanity differs from the state of insanity, yet not showing insanity is different from showing sanity. There are true-positives, true-negatives, false-positives, and false-negatives.

Post reply on HN