Insanity

The recent case of this woman here in Texas, the woman who killed all 5 of her children, had me thinking. Actually, I always think about this, but I wanted to know what you great minds think about it. Does the case of Insanity in a murder trial justify the killing of anyone? On one hand, you have the basic principal of killing someone is just wrong, but on the other hand, If a person was not in their right mind...then what?

so, tell me what you think...

I just say throw them in jail if they are insane. If it happend once it can happen again. If I was insane I would want them to throw me in jail. I wouldn't want a person like me walking around that could randomly go insane for no reason and kill people. That scares me.

Originally posted by SickLude
Does the case of Insanity in a murder trial justify the killing of anyone?

Put simply NO. There is nothing (apart from maybe self defence) that would justify killing someone

Define sanity and right state of mind, and I might be able to give you my opinion. :cool:

Originally posted by Moppie
Define sanity and right state of mind, and I might be able to give you my opinion. :cool: alright, lets take the denotation...

1.The quality or condition of being sane; soundness of mind.
2.Soundness of judgment or reason.
3.The condition or quality of being sane; soundness of health of body or mind, especially of the mind; saneness.

So basically, a person that is capable of knowing right from wrong, sound and unsound. I know what your going to say: "My right may not be your right", and that is true, however, lets just say a person that knows that murder in any from is wrong, which is simple to understand and probably universally true.

so, what say of you?

It depends on how you look at the law. The first purpose of the whole judicial deal is to dish out justice and give the criminals some sort of penance for their crimes. If someone is not in the right frame of mind and reality they cant truly be held responsible for their actions. And, considering they arent in the right frame of mind they possibly wont even care about what punishments they are given.

Now before ya break out the flamers, theres another side to the whole judicial deal. that side is that its the judicial departments responsibility to protect those that are innocent. If someone is "insane" they pose a threat to those around them and they should be detained until it is believed otherwise, all the while receiving some treatment.

Originally posted by SickLude
alright, lets take the denotation...

1.The quality or condition of being sane; soundness of mind.
2.Soundness of judgment or reason.
3.The condition or quality of being sane; soundness of health of body or mind, especially of the mind; saneness.

So basically, a person that is capable of knowing right from wrong, sound and unsound. I know what your going to say: "My right may not be your right", and that is true, however, lets just say a person that knows that murder in any from is wrong, which is simple to understand and probably universally true.

so, what say of you?

Ok, I think that if someone is ACTUALLY Insane, as in they cannot comprehend what they are doing, what it's repercussions will be, and cannot decern right from wrong, that they should get a lesser sentance. The fact still stands that they killed some one and they must attone for it. Now I will say this, a few times in my high school days a certian drug has been know to be in my system, while under the influence of this drug that will remain nameless so as to not stain my reputation for past missjudgements, I think I can truely understand what it is like to be insane. I can remember one night in particular when I had a bad experience with said drug, and all I can say is that I donnot really remember large parts of that night and I was NOT in control of my body. All the while I was aware of what was going on and was struggeling to gain control, but I could not. I also remember sitting on my bed and seriously not being able to remember when I had sat down, what I was doing here, or were I was. So, if my bad trip is anything close to being insane, I don't think someone who is insane should get the same sentance as some one who did the same thing in cold blood all the while knowing exactialy what he/she was doing.

The insanity plea is a wonderfully convenient,flexible and subjective way for those lawyers with inadequate ethics to prevent justice being properly done.Rustle up a sympathetic expert,point to a history of deprivation and hardship,bowl out a sob story about depression,it seems so easy to find excuses for unacceptable behaviour.Too many people are being found not guilty by reason of insanity.....and not enough people are standing up and admitting that they lacked the self-discipline.

Actually, the insanity defense fails a lot more then it succeeds. Usually, it’s the last ditch effort to get someone life and keep them from getting the chair. It is not often used as a defense – except in television dramas.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
Actually, the insanity defense fails a lot more then it succeeds. Usually, it’s the last ditch effort to get someone life and keep them from getting the chair. It is not often used as a defense – except in television dramas.
Very true!
And just to note the legal terminology, it's usually called a "diminished capacity" defense; the legal profession tends not to say "insanity" except to garner public opinion in a sound bite.

Occasionally, you'll hear a defense of "diminished capacity by reason of mental defect" - which pretty much just means the defendant has severe mental problems, as diagnosed by a psychiatrist. But note that you can also have "diminished capacity" by reason of alcohol, drugs, rage, tiredness, allergic reaction, or anything else that alters your mental state. They all fall under the same defense, which doesn't get criminals off the hook, it just asks for leniency and treatment. i.e. it's an attempt to make the punishment more accurately fit the crime.

:cool:

Originally posted by YogsVR4
Actually, the insanity defense fails a lot more then it succeeds. Usually, it’s the last ditch effort to get someone life and keep them from getting the chair. It is not often used as a defense – except in television dramas.

It has been used succesfully in N.Z. several times in recent years.That may not sound like a hell of a lot,but until quite recently murder was a fairly unusul crime here.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
Actually, the insanity defense fails a lot more then it succeeds. Usually, it’s the last ditch effort to get someone life and keep them from getting the chair. It is not often used as a defense – except in television dramas. This is very true and I agree totally. However, the reason why I bring this up is because of the woman in Houston Tx, who murdered her 5 children. They (the lawyers) went straight to this plea, no If's, and's, or but's. The woman, as they claim, was not in the "right" state of mind. She could not decifer between the right (killing her children) and the wrong (not killing her children)...in her case of course. The right and wrong meaning, HER right and wrong.

so with this said, and assuming that this is true, which is what we do in philosophy to gain the truth values of premises, that she was actually not cabable of knowing....is it justifiable? In her mind, she was right...

There have been cases where the prosecutor gave enough evidence to prove premeditation in the commiting of a murder but the defense pleded temporary insanity and the punnishment was reduced to home detention (or something like that).

THE LAW IS AN ASS

TEMPORARY INSANITY?!

who the HELL would buy that?! thats goin a lil too far

Originally posted by SickLude
This is very true and I agree totally. However, the reason why I bring this up is because of the woman in Houston Tx, who murdered her 5 children. They (the lawyers) went straight to this plea, no If's, and's, or but's. The woman, as they claim, was not in the "right" state of mind. She could not decifer between the right (killing her children) and the wrong (not killing her children)...in her case of course. The right and wrong meaning, HER right and wrong.

so with this said, and assuming that this is true, which is what we do in philosophy to gain the truth values of premises, that she was actually not cabable of knowing....is it justifiable? In her mind, she was right...

Well, the reason why they went straight to the insanity plea was because she was on some very powerful antipsychotics. Trust me, she wouldn't be on that kind of medication if she wasn't insane! If a normal person took that sort of medication, we would pretty much become a vegetable.

This lady needs help, not a jail cell! If you think jail time will help a person that was ill in the head, you're an idiot! Not to mention, you don't know the first thing about mental illnesses and their affects on consumers and their families.

Anyway, how can you counter for her husband speaking on her defense??

Originally posted by Jeepguy01
If you think jail time will help a person that was ill in the head, you're an idiot! Not to mention, you don't know the first thing about mental illnesses and their affects on consumers and their families.are you talking to me directly? Because im merely taking up the other side, that is to say, im just bringing this up to show what others might say, ya know? I hope your not talking to me. Dont judge in here man. You wont learn anything that way.

"consumers" damn humanists :p

I really think it's lame. Anyone determined enough could fool even the best psychologist into believing they were whacked. Then you would get to be high all the time in the loonie bin instead of being somebody's butt buddy. :puke

To bring some closure to this thread (refering back to the first post and the woman in Texas who killed all her children) the dimished capacity plea did not work. The woman has just been convicted on five counts of capital murder. The jury will now hear arguments and decide if the punishment should be life imprisonment or death.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020312/ts/crime_mother_dc_41.html

:(

Originally posted by fritz_269
To bring some closure to this thread (refering back to the first post and the woman in Texas who killed all her children) the dimished capacity plea did not work. The woman has just been convicted on five counts of capital murder. The jury will now hear arguments and decide if the punishment should be life imprisonment or death.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020312/ts/crime_mother_dc_41.html

:(

Aye, just saw it on CNN, the jury deliberated for a little under 3 1/2 hours :)

She recieved Life....