1 edit
@KellyJay said"the principles behind the insanity defense are clear:
How can someone who killed her three children and confessing to it, not be guilty, saying mental issues could be used for every crime after the fact, is that valid to avoid consquences for murder of children, or others like innocent victims just sitting on a bus or train?
Criminal sanctions promote public safety through the deterrent effect of the punishment itself and the stigma of a criminal conviction.
Criminal sanctions also punish people who harm others.
However, without blameworthiness, deterrence is not effective and punishment is not justified.1 2
When an individual is determined to be not criminally responsible, acquittal through a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) is the appropriate action. Concerns about public safety and the need for treatment usually remain after such an acquittal, but these concerns should be addressed through civil commitment — involuntary treatment in mental hospitals until the danger has passed — rather than through confinement in prison."
https://mhanational.org/position-statements/in-support-of-the-insanity-defense/
"In reality, however, various criminal studies have established that only about one percent of all felony cases in the United States involve use of the insanity defense. Moreover, even when the defense is asserted, it is successful in only about 30 cases every year."
"For several hundred years, the insanity defense has acted as a defense against criminal charges for a defendant who was incapable of understanding what he or she was doing, or in determining right from wrong. Since our criminal system generally requires that most defendants had some knowledge or intent when committing a criminal act, the insanity defense provides relief for those deemed incapable of forming such mental states."
https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/insanity/
For your education. As for "avoiding consequences":
"Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not simply released. Instead, they are usually transferred into the custody of a psychiatric facility or other mental health institution, often for a longer period than defendants convicted and sent to prison for the same offense."
@no1marauder saidDeCarlos Brown a mentally unstable repeat offender, was released back into society, where he was able to kill Iryna Zarutska in cold blood. He should be executed or the family should hire a hitman to shoot him, because he will return to the streets to kill again. The criminal justice system has failed and people cannot simply ignore the constant threat to their lives, and wait on an incompetent and failed system to protect them.
"Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not simply released. Instead, they are usually transferred into the custody of a psychiatric facility or other mental health institution, often for a longer period than defendants convicted and sent to prison for the same offense."
@no1marauder saidMany things are now legal because people no longer feel personal responsibility or fear the consequences, making it hard not to act on rage when you feel even slightly slighted under those circumstances.
"the principles behind the insanity defense are clear:
Criminal sanctions promote public safety through the deterrent effect of the punishment itself and the stigma of a criminal conviction.
Criminal sanctions also punish people who harm others.
However, without blameworthiness, deterrence is not effective and punishment is not justified.1 2
When an ind ...[text shortened]... ution, often for a longer period than defendants convicted and sent to prison for the same offense."
@KellyJay saidIt is the fault of the American jurors aka the American public do not have a well developed conscience. It happened because some decades ago the Bible was condemned and removed from schools, the religious people were ridiculed. The focus of society is material wealth and temporary pleasure. While there are still many good things about the American society, it is clearly failing as a nation.
How can someone who killed her three children and confessing to it, not be guilty, saying mental issues could be used for every crime after the fact, is that valid to avoid consquences for murder of children, or others like innocent victims just sitting on a bus or train?
@KellyJay saidPretty much the opposite is true; the number of penal laws have multiplied greatly in the last 50 years or so. And the US incarceration rate is far higher than other "advanced" nations.
Many things are now legal because people no longer feel personal responsibility or fear the consequences, making it hard not to act on rage when you feel even slightly slighted under those circumstances.
@no1marauder saidSo has, low or no bail, getting caught and released, and driving down penalties for repeat offenders until they do something, even the woke courts must respond.
Pretty much the opposite is true; the number of penal laws have multiplied greatly in the last 50 years or so. And the US incarceration rate is far higher than other "advanced" nations.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidSome people won't be happy until half of us are in jail with the other half guarding them.
So has, low or no bail, getting caught and released, and driving down penalties for repeat offenders until they do something, even the woke courts must respond.
There's about 2 million incarcerated in the US; how many more do you want? https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2026.html
Bail shouldn't be used as a strategy to keep people accused of minor offenses incarcerated because they are poor. It's economically inefficient as well as unjust.
@no1marauder saidWe treat each other with respect, or we don’t; we either hold each other accountable or we don’t, and if we don’t, we end up with unaccountable people who feel they can act however they want, even when they’re angry. Stop people from being repeat offenders, which breeds more; you’ll stop much of the suffering those just living their lives have to deal with.
Some people won't be happy until half of us are in jail with the other half guarding them.
There's about 2 million incarcerated in the US; how many more do you want? https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2026.html
Bail shouldn't be used as a strategy to keep people accused of minor offenses incarcerated because they are poor. It's economically inefficient as well as unjust.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidGee any idea how to do so i.e. reduce repeat offenders? Maybe a program rather than another post filled with empty platitudes?
We treat each other with respect, or we don’t; we either hold each other accountable or we don’t, and if we don’t, we end up with unaccountable people who feel they can act however they want, even when they’re angry. Stop people from being repeat offenders, which breeds more; you’ll stop much of the suffering those just living their lives have to deal with.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10677
@KellyJay saidThis comment certainly applies to white collar crime, since enforcement is way down, but that isn't really relevant to this thread eh?
Many things are now legal because people no longer feel personal responsibility or fear the consequences, making it hard not to act on rage when you feel even slightly slighted under those circumstances.
@wildgrass saidWhy not? If consequences seem irrelevant to actions, do you think the possible outcome of our actions will matter to the one contemplating them, no matter the crime, if they think nothing major will happen as a consequence? Moreover, even treating juvenile crime as less serious may make them feel they can commit a crime, which shouldn’t be the case.
This comment certainly applies to white collar crime, since enforcement is way down, but that isn't really relevant to this thread eh?
The mindset today is that we are a divided people by so many factors- sex, race, nationality, sexual preferences, rich, poor, left, right, and so on with some painting the differences as good guys and bad ones. If we devalue the common reality we share, and instead impose one that has good guys and bad ones, we are training ourselves to cheer when someone gets murdered, or be okay with the killing of children.
@no1marauder saidHow about throwing them in jail and leaving them there until their time is up, and have no doubt about that.
Gee any idea how to do so i.e. reduce repeat offenders? Maybe a program rather than another post filled with empty platitudes?
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10677
@KellyJay saidIt seems you're living in fairy land. The prisons are full to the brim and murder rates are down. What the heck are you talking about?
Why not? If consequences seem irrelevant to actions, do you think the possible outcome of our actions will matter to the one contemplating them, no matter the crime, if they think nothing major will happen as a consequence? Moreover, even treating juvenile crime as less serious may make them feel they can commit a crime, which shouldn’t be the case.
The mindset today is ...[text shortened]... are training ourselves to cheer when someone gets murdered, or be okay with the killing of children.
@no1marauder saidI understand that the law recognizes insanity as a possible defense. I must assume that that was your answer all of the crap that you pasted above. That is your answer. It probably has something to do with insanity, I didn’t read it.
"the principles behind the insanity defense are clear:
Criminal sanctions promote public safety through the deterrent effect of the punishment itself and the stigma of a criminal conviction.
Criminal sanctions also punish people who harm others.
However, without blameworthiness, deterrence is not effective and punishment is not justified.1 2
When an ind ...[text shortened]... ution, often for a longer period than defendants convicted and sent to prison for the same offense."
That’s not what KJay asking. I’m asking you a simple question as a person, not as a legal researcher: If someone deliberately kills her three children and admits doing it, do you personally consider her guilty of killing them? Please answer that question in a normal paragraph rather than posting a collection of links explaining the law. I and everyone already understand that the law has an insanity defense, you are boring, it would be refreshing if you wrote like a human.
And, that you not Escape Into The Law, What does ‘not guilty’ mean to you in this situation when you acknowledge that she killed all three children? That’s the point I’m asking you to address.
You never could answer a question. Zzzzz