What are your feelings on a not guilty by reason of insanity plea?

I’m not crazy about it.

Insanity has a definition (actually, several, I think). While we’d like to think that anyone who harms another human is insane, the simple fact is that this is very often not the case. People kill each other for insurance money, out of anger, or just because someone asked them to (whether or not they were paid).

However, a woman with untreated post-partum depression that drowns her children in the family pool is simply out of her own head. Her brain was not funtioning normally through no fault of her own, and she was unable to control her own actions.
In such a case, the murderer would be not guilty.

@Seek_Kolinahr. That’s a valid point, about PPD, which I had not considered.

The ‘not guilty because of insanity’ verdict usually carries with it commitment to a mental facility which can be just as unpleasant as life in prison [I can make no comparison to states with the death penalty]. And there is no parole. Hinckley’d probably be out of a jail by now after years of good behavior. But he may well stay at St Elizabeth’s until he dies.

When someone is judged to be not guilty by reason of insanity, my understanding is they have been ruled incapable of ‘intending’ to commit a crime because of their mental state. So they lacked the mental capacity to plan or to prevent themselves from acting. For instance, they were in a psychotic state, suffering from some form of post-traumatic stress, abused woman syndrome or something similar. I have no problem with this defence. To use it the accused has to be examined by psychiatrists who determine the person really was sick at that time. And as @anartist said, there is the risk they may be committed to a mental facility for life with no hope of parole.

There are cases where a mother kills her children because her view of the world is so warped that she puts the children in harms way without understanding they will be hurt. For her I have nothing but sympathy.

There are people who commit crimes out of misbegotten religious fervor. “God told me to do it.” However genuine their claims are, I want to hold them accountable, especially if they make an attempt to hide what they’ve done.

There is the marginal case where someone has paranoid delusions and believes another person to be a threat to them. I feel sympathy for that person. At the same time, I don’t want gun toting delusional paranoids free to decide I’m a threat. So I’m just staying the hell out of Florida.

I have no problem with such a verdict, but feel the perpetrator needs to be kept in a facility at least as long as they would be if found guilty.

I have a big problem with the terminology. If (for example) you did actually kill someone, how can you be “not guilty”? Shouldn’t it be something like “Guilty, extenuated by insanity”?

@syz Well, the terminology is what is causing your question here. Murder is by definition planned and intended death of another. So a person could be guilty of killing someone without being guilty of murder, like cases of manslaughter. It’s about the rational intent of someone who is accountable for their actions.

I think you should be tried in regular court based on your actions. It is during sentencing that I feel insanity could have an effect. Instead of going to jail right away, they are taken to the psych ward to start their sentence and then can be put in jail once treated and deemed well enough to hang out with inmates.

@Seek_Kolinahr So if a schizophrenic drowns a baby, that’s OK too? The schizophrenic “is simply out of her own head. Her brain was not functioning normally through no fault of her own, and she was unable to control her own actions.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel as though preaching to a soft spot in society (such as post partom depression). Drowning a baby is drowning a baby, no matter what mental disorder you want to classify it under, it’s still wrong and punishable by law. I’m not getting all Tom Cruise on you and saying that post-patrum isn’t real (I do acknowledge it as a disorder), but I can’t justify giving those women a free pass. Free pass them, free pass all mental disorders, because by definition, the brains of all people with mental disorders are “not functioning normally” as you stated. There needs to be some responsibility on the person, though mentally ill, to get help and get treatment. If it takes them committing a crime and being jailed for it and forced into treatment and prison, then so be it. But we can’t have a functioning society if we let all people who are set free under this plea walking the streets again.

@Trillian You have stated the common definition of murder, not the legal definition of murder. Considering the question is about the legal system, we need to debate based upon that legal definition. There are 4 varieties of murder. (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies. When you gave your example, I think you are referring to #2 where the killing was not the initial intent, but the result.

I think the plea is applicable in some situations where the defendant is clearly off their rocker. They’d be better treated in a mental facility and not a prison.

But this only works if you believe that prisons should, at least, try to reform prisoners. In a society bent on punishment many don’t believe that there should be a distinction.

@Ponderer983 I believe that @Seek_Kolinahr was merely using PPD as an example of mental illness not giving mothers a free pass that she would not grant to a “normal” insane person.

The accused would have to be crazy to choose this defense.

@Ponderer983 I don’t completely disagree with your idea of having the evaluation made as part of the sentencing. But I will point out that some severely mentally ill people are not capable of participating in their own defense.

My view on that is that they be institutionalized in a mental health facility until they are capable of being tried.

@Ponderer983, the law concerns intent as well as the act performed. Killing a baby that darts in front of one’s car is killing a baby, but is not illegal. How can a person be responsible for seeking treatment if he lacks the ability to recognize that he needs treatment? A common symptom of mental illness is the involuntary misinterpretation of one’s experience that leads to inappropriate behavior.

In the UK it’s called “manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility” which I like much better than the way it’s done in the US. There’s no “not guilty” verdict because they’re guilty of something, namely manslaughter (which is un-premeditated killing). It also eliminates the need for deciding whether a person is sane or insane and settles only on one specific question: “Was the killer wholly responsible for his/her actions at the time?” It usually carries a sentence of very long term or permanent imprisonment in a secure mental institution.

@downtide Some jurisdictions here have “Guilty by reason of insanity” for the same reason.

Indeed, PPD was simply an example. I agree wholeheartedly that, for example, a person with verifiable multiple-personality disorder could be defensible through an insanity plea. That doesn’t mean I want the person traipsing about on the streets, it just means they aren’t guilty of murder. Should they get help, preferably where their alternate persona can’t go all Identity on other people? Yes. Are they “murderers”? No.

By contrast, a person who is out of their tree on smack and kills someone would not be defensible. They chose to do meth, they chose to put themselves in the state of mind that allowed them to kill. Murderer.

Really interesting – sorry that I asked and ran last night, but had a family thing come up. I think the answer I most agree with is the stay in a mental health facility until sane, and then off to prison.

It seems to me that every high profile case we hear of, the plea is most often not guilty by reason of insanity – to the point where it is the standard cop out. Thanks all, for the comments,

@syz Right, and any of those definitions could not be committed by someone who – by definition- was temporarily deprived of his reasoning.
What’s that guy’s name up in Canada who killed his kids, was found ‘not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity’? and now, less than a year after the finding, wants out of the nut house to start a new family? I’d say that he has no remorse, no conscience, and is probably a sociopath. Isn’t that crazy by society’s standards?
I think we have a tendency to use broad, sweeping generalizations and can’t actually have a one size fits all opinion about this type of issue.
It seems more like the question is about people not having to face consequences for their actions, and we don’t like that. That’s why we get so angry at politicians and public figures who…. all right, never mind. Not going down that road this early in the day.

Think of it this way. I put a gun in your hand. I wrap your hand in a device so that I can force you to pull the trigger. Then I put your spouse in front of you, and force you to pull the trigger and your spouse dies. It is your finger that pulls the trigger.

Now you say you aren’t responsible because I forced you to do that. But I say you never should have gotten into a position where I could force you to pull the trigger. So you’re still responsible.

It’s the same with mental illness. You think differently when you are ill. You think in ways you can not think when you are well. You literally can not think the thoughts you thought when you were sick. So you were a different person in some crucial ways.

I made some choices I never would have made had I been well. I feel responsible for those choices by my psychiatrist and therapist and friends and family say I shouldn’t feel responsible. I wouldn’t have made those choices had I been well.

I think it’s pretty easy to see that almost everyone would not choose to murder if they were not sick. It is the sickness that is responsible, and when they are well, they have no responsibility. To put them in jail is a waste of a life and of state money, but if you want to do that, just to punish a person for something they didn’t really do, then go ahead and do that.

Come to a meeting of bipolar folk some time. Listen to the stories of what they did while manic and compare that to how they behave in the meeting. They are completely different people, and we all understand because we’ve experienced it.

If you haven’t experienced it, I don’t think you can believe it’s possible. You can’t imagine being different people. You can’t imagine doing one thing when sick that you would never otherwise do. So you want to hold the person responsible because you truly believe they are still essentially the same person.

I don’t blame you. I never would have believed it either until I experienced it. It just doesn’t make sense. But I assure you it does happen and people aren’t making it up. It is possible to be more than one person. At worst, you can hold people responsible for not taking care of their illness, especially if they are already under treatment. And I can see holding someone responsible for that, although, once you get sick, you really can’t take care of yourself. You don’t want to. Often, you just want to die.

However, holding someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder responsible for something they did while having an episode is like holding the stream bed responsible for the flow of the stream. You can do it, but it doesn’t help you change the outcome or help the person.

The reason why people want to punish those who commit crimes is that it satisfies some feeling of justice. It isn’t justice, but it does satisfy the feelings. Our feelings are powerful motivators, but they don’t help us make the world a better place.

In my opinion, it is better to rehabilitate people than to satisfy our notions of revenge. I think we can be better than cave people. We can rise above our base emotions in the same way that a mentally ill person can get well if they get the right treatment. I think you’ll find that if you learn to look at what is best for society rather than what is best for our emotions, it will be more acceptable to help people overcome mental illness, and allow them to contribute to society instead of wasting their lives in prison—which, believe it or not, is probably where most of them think they belong.

@wundayatta I sort of agree with you. Up to a point. The thing you said about not holding them responsible is the sticking point. My argument goes something like this;
So, you can’t be held responsible for the actions you take and the decisions you make? Ok, then WHO will be? If you are not able to function as a part of society without the capacity for making responsible decisions. if you make decisions with all your enjoyed freedoms as part of this society and thereby cause harm to others, who is going to be responsible for those decisions?
Someone has to be. Someone has to prevent you from repeating those actions which cause harm to others. So if YOU cannot be held responsible for your actions, then in order to protect society from YOU, someone needs to keep an eye on you in order to prevent harm to the rest of society. I don’t have the time or resources to watch you all day, I have my own shit to do. Neither does anybody else. THEREFOR, we need to put you and others like you in a place apart from the rest of society. Your freedoms must, of necessity, be curtailed because you make irresponsible decisions with your freedoms. You abuse your freedoms and cause harm to others. You may not mean to, but intent does not preclude result. So if you are a menace to society because you have mental problems and can’t be held responsible, you still need to be removed from society for the good of society. We can work on causes, therapy and medications in that other setting. But your freedoms can not be the same as the ones of responsible, accountable members of society. It is the same as parents being responsible for their children. Until a child reaches the age of accountability, their freedoms are curtailed. They do not have all the freedoms of adults, not the accountability. A child might not like the restrictions, and chafe under them. “As long as you live under MY roof, little missy…”
I agree with your sentiment. People need to be helped to be contributing, fulfilled members of society. It’s the same with released felons. They lack the tools, for the most part, to reach that goal. Gaaaahhhh! That’s another can of worms.

The responsibility, it seems to me, is to stay well. That means taking your meds and seeing your therapist and so on. If you are getting sick, then we need a system that allows us to see that, if it happens, so we can make sure you get help when you need it.

Society certainly has a legitimate right to try to keep itself safe. However we can make it easier for that to happen by making sure people have access to health care. It’s in our interest to make sure you see a therapist every week, so we can catch it if you start getting sick again. You should want to be responsible and work hard to stay well.

If you aren’t, then you do run the danger of being incarcerated. It’s the only way we know, these days, to keep people from causing harm.

Some people will take their responsibility seriously and stay well. Others may have troubles, even if they take the responsibility seriously, and still others just may not really care. If they get sick, they may need to be institutionalized. In some cases, they may not be able to get out again, if they can’t show they can take care of their health.

@wundayatta agreed about the access to health care. But that doesn’t go far enough. Many who most need mental health care are the least likely to seek it out. Or stay with the course of treatment once begun. There are too many other variables factored in here.
A better answer might be MANDATORY treatment.
Again, a question of “rights”. People in this country have a “right” not to seek help. That is never questioned, even when that lack is an underlying cause of inappropriate actions.
Until that is called into question….

Mandatory treatment doesn’t help if no one helps you get to appointments when you are incapable of getting out of bed, or if you are manic and no longer thing anything is wrong with you. Mentally ill people need help, not orders. If they could follow orders, they wouldn’t be mentally ill.

An order is almost telling someone who is mentally ill to do the opposite thing. It tells you that no one actually cares to help, which is exactly what most of them think anyway. It gives them permission to be hopeless and to give up, especially if they want to die but can’t quite kill themselves. You don’t really want to piss off someone who doesn’t care whether they die or not. They’ll go postal.

I hate to say it, but they need love. If you can’t give them love, you might as well imprison them forever. Or shoot them. Life doesn’t make sense without love. And without love and with no fear of death, is there any reason to behave responsibly?

You would be amazed what people can do when they don’t care about dying any more. In their minds, they are already dead. Some of them can save their own lives by killing others. Others kill others in hopes they will be killed. Eventually, they’ll kill themselves when they find no one else will do it. They get sick of killing and not being stopped.

I’m guess about this last part. I’ve never wanted to kill anyone, but I imagine what might drive someone to do that, and I imagine how you might get sick of yourself after a while and finally get the guts to kill yourself.

I think I have to wave the bullshit flag here. Love does not conquer all, and loving someone who has a mental illness does not cure the person or make them any more productive or fulfilled.
I loved my ex, it changed nothing. I finally had to leave him in order to save myself. People who need psychiatric help need exactly that. You can love an alligator all day. That won’t stop it from eating you if you get too close.
And when I said mandatory treatment, I meant all that that implies.
But here’s the thing; as I pointed out in a recent thread, you cannot isolate societal problems and fix only one thing. So treatment, therapy and medication cal all help an individual person. But getting to the root of problems, underlying causes of mental illness, drug related criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, etc. All these things come to the public attention when something so unfortunate happens that it is gone into the justice system. We all seem to overlook the fact that the events and circumstances leading up to that point are extremely influential contributing causes. These things will continue to contribute to the ever growing problem of the above listed issues. The fact that each “issue” consists of individuals with lives, stories, and problems becomes lost in the very enormity of the problem.
There are no simple answers, but the realization that fixing one problem, one issue, will ultimately fail if ALL the issues are not addressed and corrected would be a solid step towards thinking outside of the box and taking a more holistic approach to changes that need to be made in our society.
Remember, if you squeeze a bulge in a balloon, it will only pop out somewhere else. Squeezing the bulge does nothing to fix the cause of the problem.

But is that an appropriate legal defense, @wundayatta? It sounds like you described depression. What if that person who went on a killing spree did so in order to have suicide-by-cop as their final curtain call. Suppose they live. Should they be dealt with in a manner you described and helped through treatment in order to live freely in society again?

@wundayatta I’m sorry if I seems to belittle people with mental illnesses. That was not my intent. People who know me know that if I go off my bi polar meds, I tend to get pretty wound up.

That being said, even at my most off kilter, I have never felt the need, pressure, or desire to kill anyone, but I have had some work experience with severely mentally ill people who are in the prison system. So, I can see both sides of the fence.

My point is this. My opinion is that a lot of people who are actually capable of making a choice, choose to commit a crime, and then hide behind the “insanity” plea. And, no matter how restrictive a mental hospital might be, it beats the prisons that the common criminal serves their time in.

@Eureka I must defer to your experience on this. My thoughts are based on my own experiences, which do not include incarceration.

@bkcunningham I can’t answer your question definitively. I would say that if someone will no longer harm anyone, and they prove they can maintain their health, then I would like to think it would be safe for them to try to be contributing members of society again. But I don’t want to risk they murdering again. So there would have to be safeguards.

The problem is that you can do well with your health for a while and then some set of events can throw you back into an episode despite all your efforts. You need a lot of support to stay healthy, and you have to work to maintain that support. I see people dealing with the issue of support at every meeting I go to. So many are on disability and suddenly their benefits are cut due to bureaucratic bullshit, and they lose their meds, and the next thing they know they are manic and getting arrested for theft in their own CVS or accosting people in the street or taking off their clothes in a Walmart (all real stories I’ve heard about manic episodes).

These are people who are incredibly mild-mannered and intelligent and nice when they are well. When sick… well, they aren’t themselves—not the selves I see in meetings. They aren’t hiding from what they did. They don’t need to lie about it because everyone in the room has done something anti-social while sick. None of them want to behave this way. I don’t know if people believe that.

Maybe the people in prison who use mental illness as a scam might believe that. But the people I see are not like that. They don’t want to be sick and sometimes they do get sick because they don’t take care of themselves properly. Sometimes they don’t stop smoking pot or drinking. Sometimes they don’t want to take their meds, but they all seem to cop to what they are doing in meeting. And none of us browbeat them because we know how hard it is to change our lives and we all believe it’s unnecessary to browbeat. People will change when they get it together to do so. Shaming them doesn’t make it more likely. It usually makes it more likely they will deny they have a problem.

@Trillian No. Love does not conquer all. You are right. Sometimes, my conditions for believing you love me are too onerous. There’s no way you could meet that standard. That’s not your fault and you couldn’t do more.

At some point, it’s up to me to recognize the love I receive. I couldn’t see it when I was sick and my wife tried so hard. But even though I couldn’t see it, it made a difference. So I would tell you to believe that you have made a difference, even if it didn’t work as you wanted it to. You are a good person and you made a difference and it didn’t work out.

At some point, after I started getting better, I realized my wife and children did love me and need me. I don’t know if I would have gotten better without that. I don’t think so. But it also could not have been enough, were I sicker, or different in my base personality.

I know people can change, but I also know that mental illness ebbs and flows and it seems like a very difficult thing to keep away for a long time. I’ve been sick once and after two years, I got better, and I’ve been pretty stable since then. But there’s no guarantee for the future, and when we think about people who have murdered, that is what is so scary. There are no guarantees. Is that enough to keep them in jail forever, even though they are acting healthy most of the time? Can we afford to pay for that? Or would it be better just to execute them, and save ourselves the expense, even if we are killing innocent people? Or merely incarcerating people who truly are innocent because they did the crime when they were insane, and they aren’t that person now?

@wundayatta ok, but we’re getting way off the original question here. And I am not disputing your claim that people need therapy and rehabilitation.
I just think the intent of the original question had more to do with accountability and justice. We want justice as a society. Or revenge. We want people pay for the wrongs they do. We may not necessarily apply those same standards to ourselves, but we don’t like to hear about people who cause harm then be found “not guilty by reason of insanity”. Our own lack of empathy, ability to put ourselves in someone else’s place gives us a need to see justice done. We can’t know what happened to a person inside their head that caused them to commit murder or other harm. We only know what we see in the bloody aftermath. The end of life is never pretty. We can more easily empathize with the victim and the family of the victim. Maybe because we don’t want to empathize with a murderer. That would be admitting that we ourselves may be capable of such acts. That’s a difficult idea to come to grips with.
You empathize with the “sick” person because you yourself understand what it is to not have yourself under control. How scary is it to not have that control?
I get that.
But then, you have the luxury of a good health care policy and are already receiving therapy, having passed the “I need help” phase.
The greater percentage of people who need help are simply not going to get it. And many of them are a danger to themselves and society. They also will never attain self actualization. Never be able to fully live and enjoy their lives. Think of it. All those lives lived and not fulfilled. What contributions is our world missing out on because of that?

^ Sounds like another reason to support single-payer healthcare.