Ahh, justice = revenge. And meted out by the state. So who's the 'statist', Neal?

Here's the thing. There's more to justice than meting out punishment to the guilty. First of all you have to determine that they are guilty. Even in a case that appears to be pretty clear (based on your second-hand consumption of the facts as presented by various media), that's no reason to abandon the same legal protections that any other accused person should have.

To say that this guy doesn't 'deserve' to be able to present a particular defence seems to me to be prejudice in the literal sense of the word - you've already decided he's guilty and as such we (via the state) can start to reduce his legal protections even before he goes to trial.

The 5th Amendment and other laws that you may feel protect the 'guilty' are there for a reason. It's to stop the government (through the judiciary, the prosecutors and the police) from abusing the rights of the accused. Given that there is a legitimate defence of insanity that could well be employed - but has to be tested and is incumbent upon the defence to establish - it should not be ruled out for people accused of murder or another, just because you don't like it. Fact is, that there are times when people are insane and kill without being in control or being aware of what they are doing.

But there seems to be a conflation of three different things here, amidst the blood-lust for 'justice' (the more painful the better, I see):

Firstly there's the question of whether the defendent is fit for trial. That means being currently able to understand what's going on and assist in his own defence. Regardless of who they are and what they are accused of, we erode that right at our peril.

Secondly there's the question of whether he may (which is not for sure, it's all speculation as far as I can see) be making a case for a defence through insanity. That would mean trying to establish that he was not capable of clear intent, and as we know, intent is a very important part of a murder indictment. The prosecution will have to prove intent, and a defendent has a right to present any evidence that may raise a doubt. To deny the right of a defendent to present whatever evidence may be relevent to his defence would be to suspend the rules of justice.

Thirdly there's the issue of what happens at the end of this. If he's guilty, he is punished. If the trial is fair, and the evidence is heard, and a judge and jury come to a decision that he's guilty, then he's guilty. But to assume that he should be found guilty and what the punishment should be, is to pre-judge it.

It reminds me of the circular logic that was employed by Cheney down to some on Redscape that held that we could violate the rights of untried terrorist suspects because they were terrorists.

bbauska wrote:Yes, I do. Society must have justice.

Are all mass murderers crazy? Probably. Do they deserve insanity defenses? Not in my world. Then again, I am a black/white type person. (Did you kill someone and were found guilty? Then thank you for playing, your services are no longer needed in this world. Bang...)

Really? Wow. In your world there is nobody who ever does anything they can't control because of mental illness. How compassionate of you.

But even a good assassin will make two shots to the head (ala Osama Bin Laden)
...but knowing your previous vocation, I don't want to upset you and speak ill of your marksmanship (don't need you proving it on me) so let's leave it at one "Bang"?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Really? Wow. In your world there is nobody who ever does anything they can't control because of mental illness. How compassionate of you.

For a moment I thought this was Danivon. Usually it is with sarcasm that he compares my sense of justice and compassion.

Since this is the Gifford shooting thread, do you think Loughner is rightfully eligible for the insanity plea? (not that this is not the trial being set aside for 4 months, I get the difference).

Would I have put Lennie Small to death? Yes, I would have.

We want him to have a trial, which now isn't happening. He can have a defense and a jury. I don't much care about his intent in a mass murder. If he ran over someone while getting groceries than we could talk. But there's no mitigating circumstance here. What constituency is there that wants mass murders to be given leeway based on their state of mind. None.

bbauska wrote:Since this is the Gifford shooting thread, do you think Loughner is rightfully eligible for the insanity plea? (not that this is not the trial being set aside for 4 months, I get the difference).

Honestly, I don't know. I have no idea what his condition is. However, I recognize that he could have seemed completely coherent and lucid but not been. What if Loughner was having auditory hallucination that he thought was the voice of God telling him all those people were child molesters and needed to be put down?

This isn't really a hypo for me. I have an uncle that is Bipolar. When he doesn't take his meds and his mania gets really bad, he can have both visual and auditory hallucinatons. He thinks these hallucinations are Satan posing as God trying to convince him to do something wrong. He can seem entirely lucid at times while others he is completely lost in the hallucinations.

So what if he was weak one day while lost in the hallucinations and took the German Luger his father, my grandfather, brought home from the war and shot up the local convenience store. Does he deserve to be executed?

I don't want to sound cruel or unfeeling. But my honesty dictates I say what I think. Does he deserve to be executed? Yes, in my opinion, he does. It is his choice to take the meds or not. It is his choice to have access to weapons (knives, guns, explosives). It is his choice to kill everyone in the convenience store. Family/friends should be there to help prior to something tragic happening.

What choice does a clerk in a 7-11 have?

bbauska wrote:I don't want to sound cruel or unfeeling. But my honesty dictates I say what I think. Does he deserve to be executed? Yes, in my opinion, he does. It is his choice to take the meds or not. It is his choice to have access to weapons (knives, guns, explosives). It is his choice to kill everyone in the convenience store. Family/friends should be there to help prior to something tragic happening.

What choice does a clerk in a 7-11 have?

I appreciate the honesty. And can agree that the insanity defense should not be available du to the choice not to take meds. However, I might disagree with the death penalty aspect of it.

However, let's take the hypo to the next level. Let's say my uncle is undiagnosed. Therefore, he has never been given the choice to not take medications?

He still has family and friends who care, and personal responsibility to recognize the beginnings of his mania before it gets out of hand.

bbauska wrote:He still has family and friends who care, and personal responsibility to recognize the beginnings of his mania before it gets out of hand.

How would they know that though? I mean seriously, I recognize it because he is diagnosed and I used to be engaged to a woman diagnosed bipolar so I now what to look for.

However, would you recognize somebody as being manic? Would somebody who is manic but undiagnosed recognize himself as being in a manic state?

Let's try this hypo. A guy has an undiagnosed heart condition due to poor eating habit. While driving he has a heart attack. He survives the heart attack but the accident killed a group of people waiting for a bus.

Does this man deserve to be charged with murder and executed? He made the choice to have bad eating habits. He made the choice to drive his car. He had family and friends that could have stopped his bad eating habits or from his driving the car . What choice did the people waiting for the bus have?

Further, you want to try somebody and execute them for the failure of a 3rd party (family/friends) to act?

I would not execute the heart attack case and here is the difference. Yes, the heart attack person did not go driving with the intention of having a heart attack and killing. The family does have some responsibility in ensuring a driver with a condition does not drive (Like my father).
The manic victim does have the intention to kill someone (albeit with a misconception that the person is Satan). Intent to kill is the difference with me. If there is not intent, it is manslaughter. If there is intent (however misguided or deluded) it is murder.

bbauska wrote:Since this is the Gifford shooting thread, do you think Loughner is rightfully eligible for the insanity plea? (not that this is not the trial being set aside for 4 months, I get the difference).

Everyone who is accused is entitled to plead insanity. The question is whether there is any evidence to back it up (and then whether the evidence is ruled admissible by a judge, and thereafter whether it is seen to be compelling enough by a jury). If not, then the plea won't work, will it?

I guess the question is how much you trust juries

Without knowing the man himself (and none of you know him), only having seen reports through the media, I really couldn't say whether insanity as a plea would have any traction.

Brad - if the 'intent' is based on a genuinely held fear for one's life, then it's in self-defence. Killing in self defence is not always murder.

Agreed. Self defense is not murder. Insanity is a defense, yes. I do not think that people who use insanity as a defense should have any different sentencing if found guilty, however. Thank you for the clarifying point.

But if your insanity leads you to believe you face an imminent threat, it's the same thing as self-defence. That was the link I missed out in my reply.

However, if the defence is rejected, it's rejected. Pleading guilty can mitigate a sentence, and as an insanity plea is a 'not guilty' plea, I can't see how it would.

Still, if it turns out that a guilty party is insane, prison and death row would not seem to be the right place for them to go.

I don't care if you believed you were threatened. It is the actuality that matters. If an insane person kills Grandma, thinking she is an evil tooth fairy, then it would bring a trial for murder. If the defendant can actually prove Grandma IS an evil tooth fairy, that required self defense, I would acquit.

I don't care what the person was thinking. I care what the actuality is. If a battered wife waits until the husband is sleeping and then shoots him point blank in the head, is that murder? Was she insane due to the "battered-wife syndrome"? The actuality is that she shot the husband while not being threatened. She could have left. That would be murder.