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

101–110 of 143 posts

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

#101

Post by cm2012 »

fish_fan wrote: post #95
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…

I have committed myself twice, once for being suicidal and once for life-ruining anxiety. It did not help in the way I expected. You are essentially not allowed to express confidence in your own health because your caretakers will assume you’re overeager and take it as evidence you need more time in the hospital. Don’t get it twisted, though, your stay length is entirely determined by convincing health insurance comp…

Agreed on all points. The system demands that you learn to play the game quickly, lie about certain things, etc.

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

#102

Post by KGIII »

zf00002 wrote: post #30

Louis Theroux did a 2 part documentary where he visited an Ohio psychiatric hospital that housed people who were found not guilty by reason of insanity. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4546868/

Theroux's got a lot of stuff on YouTube. It may be copyright infringement, I don't know. I do know that it sits there, unchallenged, for years. He has lots of good documentaries up. I highly recommend all of them.

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

#103

Post by KGIII »

cm2012 wrote: post #100
KGIII wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the law, varies by State, usually mandates a minimal of 72 hours of observation in a psychiatric facility when there has been an attempt, or credible threat, reported. Additionally, some classes of people are mandated reporters. If they fail to report the threat, or attempt, they will lose their license and, I think, can face both civil and criminal charges. Again, some variation depending on jurisdiction.…

Yeah, I got the impression it was because of some rules or fear of lawsuits. The result is the same though - I would never recommend checking in unless you have no other choice. If you do talk to a psychologist, know when to lie.

As bad as it is, or as bad as it can be - as not everyone has bad experiences, I'm not sure I can recommend being dishonest with a mental health care provider during a time of crisis.

Unfortunately, the system is designed to deal with a broad spectrum of people with myriad complexities. They do tend to take a very hard line approach and to assume the worst. They also have reason to not always trust the patient.

It's tricky with mental health. In many ways, it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. This is more true during the initial observation period and one of the reasons many facilities do isolation for the first 24 hours, even for voluntary commitments.

It should be noted that voluntary commitments can rapidly and more easily become involuntary commitments. After all, the patient has already admitted that they are unwell.

Nope, I have no idea how to fix this mess.

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

#104

Post by derekp7 »

Sangermaine wrote: post #56
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sorr…

So basically the same thing if someone had a stroke violent seizure while at a restaurant, while cutting a steak, and accidentally stabbed the waiter in the heart killing him. In that case, a brain defect caused the person to kill the victim, yet in no way should he be held criminally responsible.

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

#105

Post by ThrustVectoring »

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.

I categorize "free will" like tort law, not like physics. When you have "free will" for a choice, you're in a situation where you are able to commit a tort or a crime in the eyes of society.

Like, do people have free will while they are sleepwalking? Science doesn't have a good answer, but people have successfully been acquitted of crimes they claimed they committed while asleep. It's far easier to answer questions about free will when you think of it in legal terms, and it matches up pretty well with your intuitions about things.

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

#106

Post by ThrustVectoring »

fish_fan wrote: post #95
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…

I have committed myself twice, once for being suicidal and once for life-ruining anxiety. It did not help in the way I expected. You are essentially not allowed to express confidence in your own health because your caretakers will assume you’re overeager and take it as evidence you need more time in the hospital. Don’t get it twisted, though, your stay length is entirely determined by convincing health insurance comp…

Ironically, a great way to get out of psychiatric commitment is to cancel or threaten to cancel your health insurance.

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

#107

Post by LeifCarrotson »

IncRnd wrote: post #53
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 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.

> would likely create prisons to protect the people

How would prisons protect people? By deterring the people who might endanger them, by removing the capacity of people who do cause harm to cause more harm, by punishing those people, and by rehabilitating them into society.

The reasons aren't secondary or primary. They're different sides of the same coin, just stated from different perspectives: how to deal with the problem of crime vs. how to protect society from criminals.

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

#108

Post by messick »

justinator wrote: post #68
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.

The brother turning him in is how the FBI found Ted. The linguistics stuff was the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

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

#109

Post by limeblack »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #106
fish_fan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have committed myself twice, once for being suicidal and once for life-ruining anxiety. It did not help in the way I expected. You are essentially not allowed to express confidence in your own health because your caretakers will assume you’re overeager and take it as evidence you need more time in the hospital. Don’t get it twisted, though, your stay length is entirely determined by convincing health insurance comp…

Ironically, a great way to get out of psychiatric commitment is to cancel or threaten to cancel your health insurance.

Can you elaborate? I have my guesses what you mean but want to be sure I'm inferring correctly.

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

#110

Post by limeblack »

KGIII wrote: post #103
cm2012 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I got the impression it was because of some rules or fear of lawsuits. The result is the same though - I would never recommend checking in unless you have no other choice. If you do talk to a psychologist, know when to lie.

As bad as it is, or as bad as it can be - as not everyone has bad experiences, I'm not sure I can recommend being dishonest with a mental health care provider during a time of crisis. Unfortunately, the system is designed to deal with a broad spectrum of people with myriad complexities. They do tend to take a very hard line approach and to assume the worst. They also have reason to not always trust the patient. It's…

> It should be noted that voluntary commitments can rapidly and more easily become involuntary commitments. After all, the patient has already admitted that they are unwell.

Yes. Once admitted you have something no matter how convincing you are. Never talked to someone who walked out having not be diagnosed with something.

Post reply on HN