How do you feel about the "mentally unfit" defense in court?

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by filosophia

 

He might not even really get that he did it. According to some articles the guy screams that the stereo in his room is giving his messages and that waves are invading his mind. The guy is obviously insane. He needs to be locked up in an asylum.

So if you were a juror, all I would have to do is scream loudly and say the radio is invading my brain, and you would assume I'm crazy? Do you see my point in how easy it is to fake mental psychosis?

I have worked with people who have indeed faked psychosis and they get found out very quickly, remember he will be watched 24/7 by professionals.
People who fake it can't keep it up all the time, I know one bloke who faked it and he only acted "crazy" when staff were around, and in his ward rounds he would act completly mad and he would be ok 5 mins after.
Also if any of you think you can goto court act crazy and get off, your wrong...the people who I deal with who have a sentence on them stay locked up alot longer than their original sentence.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by filosophia

 

One would think it was through several interviews/evaluations performed by several different professionals, as well as studying past behaviors and writings.

Have you read the evaluations or just going off how you assume a fair system would work?

'___' may cause hallucinations in some, not in others.

1. Is this a professional medical opinion?
2. How do you assume a drug which caused millions of people to hallucinate in the 60's wouldn't affect Loughner?

But from his history, he would have to have been tripping 24/7

What history are you referring to? Is this a specific medical report you are citing? Did they release his pysch records online?

1. I am going by how the process works.

2. It is by personal knowledge and those 15-20 other people I know with their own personal knowledge.

3. They have discussed his past behaviors numerous times numerous places.

reply to post by Jebbaroo

I think we're only a handshake's difference from seeing this the same way. If he were in for something less than murder several times over, I'd see room for compromise when meds seem to really make improvement. In this case though, I must say that the nature of his crimes and the families who'll never have their loved ones back tends to backstop whatever progress he might ever make by being drugged into a state of seeming sanity.

Terrible that we even have people like this isn't it? I sure wonder if these people couldn't be committed or something when first detected as having problems. Maybe it would never come to this at all? For all I think Reagan did right.....he really did irreparable harm when he basically gutted the Mental Health system right at the beginning of his term.

I'm not without compassion...I'm just without forgiveness beyond a certain point.

reply to post by Jebbaroo


Here's something: (It does sound like they could force treatment on him were he ever to be released.)

"Arizona, like every state, has its own civil commitment laws that establish criteria for determining when court-ordered treatment is appropriate for individuals with severe mental illness who are too ill to seek care voluntarily. In Arizona, the court may

order a patient to undergo inpatient (hospital) or outpatient (community) treatment if there is clear and convincing evidence that a proposed patient, as a result of mental disorder, is:

a danger to self, or
a danger to others, or
persistently or acutely disabled, or
gravely disabled and in need of treatment,
and is either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment.

The state of Arizona offers an application for emergency admission for evaluation, which is available online. Also available online is the Arizona state petition for court-ordered treatment."

www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Yeah Regan must have been in cahoot's with Thatcher because she did the same...
Good point about spotting his illness, but it can be very hard to spot some people hide the illness very well, I guess it's to do with the stigma against being mentally ill.

reply to post by filosophia
You're not seriously suggesting some kind of conspiracy here are you? Oh come on... This guy really was a sick killer and the one over in Norway really is as pathetic as he appears.

The Community College tour he treated the world to is the one that really comes to mind as showing the depth of his psychosis. I'm not sure what other word to use with him. He didn't even have the presence of mind to call evil. He's just got crossed wiring or something. The real definition of criminally insane, I suppose.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Agreed, then, Wrabbit. A friend of mine is a psychiatrist at an institution for the criminally insane. He spends nearly all his time in court, nearly always stating that the prisoner in question is still a danger and shouldn't be released. He actually loves his job, and I'm damn glad he's doing it. But I'm pretty sure that none of them murdered 6 people. Although I think he still does have that one fellow who cut off another passenger's head on a Greyhound bus. Not sure that guy should still be with us either.

Ronald Reagan closed down 90% of the state mental health institutions during his reign.

That meant that all mentally defective (People through no fault of their own, born with defective brains) end up in prison.

Sorry, but some people need to be kept in a metal institution that is supervised and held accountable.

I obeyed all the rules, did not do drugs, drink or other wild stuff yet all three of my sons and now grand daugher ended up "mentally defective".............two autistic and two ADHD.

Read the Secret Covenant.

Years back I thought this absurd, absolutely insane, now I wonder.

Warfare of the future may bit intail tanks, lasers, mother ships, but a quiet covert destroying of DNA.

Wait, until this hits your family, your kids, grandkids you will not understand.

We Homo sapiens are under attack.

Laugh and mock all you want but David Icke is closer to the truth than many want to realize.

We as a species are being "modified".................changed but to what?

Read David Jacob's book, "The Threat". and watch the movie "The Live".

Crazy, you bet - but learn to think outside the box you've been placed in.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So basically you cant link to one video he supposedly made that shows his face? The college video has "him" or someone filming, so no face.

reply to post by filosophia


It's obvious that all you know about the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity plea and the concept of unfit to stand trial comes from movies and television. For example, did you know that only 1% of all defendants file a plea of NGRI? Did you know that out of those only a small portion are found to be NGRI? Did you know that those people who are found NGRI on average spend more time in a psychiatric facility than if they had been found guilty and sent to prison? You make its sound so easy to convince court-ordered psychologists that you're insane, but if that's the case then surely David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) would have been found NGRI. I mean, he claimed that he was being told to kill by his neighbor's dog who had been possessed by Satan. Yet he will sit in Sullivan Correctional Facility for the rest of his life because the court-ordered psychologists did their job.

The thing that most people don't realize is that not only are psychologists trained to identify what disorder a person is suffering from; they are also trained to identify people who are malingering. On top of that there are certain tests, such as the MMPI, that are designed to not only comprehensively evaluate a person's personality, but to determine whether or not that person is lying. If a person is deemed unfit to stand trial or found NGRI the odds are greatly in favor of these being accurate assessments. So, just because you don't know the process that goes into these decisions doesn't mean that a simple smirk in court will cause you to be found insane.

reply to post by Ixtab


If you look at the definition of insanity starting with the M'Naghten Test and going all the way up to the modern Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 you will notice at least one major commonality. That is that control has nothing to do with being found NGRI. If for some reason you are unable to control your actions but are still able to perceive right from wrong or understand the consequences of your actions you cannot be found NGRI. While the rules currently dictating when a verdict of NGRI is applicable are a bit more in depth, those are the guidelines laid down in 1843 that are the basis for the modern insanity defense.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

So basically you cant link to one video he supposedly made that shows his face? The college video has "him" or someone filming, so no face.

I'm relaxing a bit tonight and I'm not cracking open the notebook I have buried somewhere around here on him from when this happened. He's not worth any more of my time learning about madness. I'd pity him but for the body count.

However, I don't recall anyone ever arguing that was him or suggesting anything else people who knew him or family attributed to him was anything but accurate. No.. I don't have more at hand and don't plan to hunt for any. You're the first one I've heard suggest with any basis of real world evidence that it wasn't him. You do have evidence behind that claim right? I'd just assumed you do. I'm curious to hear more on that.

Here are some things that many dont mention in those that make certain claims. Most medication has the same side-effects that can cause mental illness. Including violent behavior. If this was to make main stream there would be millions of over prescribed people acting out and making claims that the meds made them do it.

When a high profile case comes along, we never question who made the analysis, or their backgrounds. Maybe this should be a new start. There have been tons of FOIA files that have come forward of people that were found to have been controlled, or under observation, and handling, that have rotted in jail, or been "murdered".

Until we stop getting our news from sources that are looking at sensationalism and not the truth, all we can do is make claims. Obviously not a well person would make a face like then when caught, but a guy that knew in advance they would get off would!

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by filosophia


(Since you focused on Loughner as a primary example I will answer in regards to that -- but keep in mind I feel this way about all so called insane murderers)

Mental Illness should not be considered as a defense. Ultimately it accomplishes nothing. Does studying the perpetrator give any comfort to the people that have been scarred by a murder victim? No, it does not. Does studying the murderer help society in any way? No, it does not. All it does is waste precious resources that could be used for far more constructive things. Execute the perpetrators and concentrate on improving society and creating a better future. This is where survival of the fittest makes the most sense by far. These people are incapable of living in our society and should be removed(this is not a statement made lightly and applies in the most extreme of cases, such as the one you provided). This is not harsh nor cruel but a reality that few seem to be able to accept.

reply to post by boymonkey74


That is why the Mental Health field is flawed. It does not matter at all why someone committed an act that society and the law disapproves of. The only RELEVANT fact gets distorted and twisted by people in your field. That is that the perpetrator killed X amount of people. The mind may not have realized what was happening or was unable to respect the gravity of it's actions. That does not change the fact that the physical body of the mentally unfit person killed people. So what if the mind cannot appreciate those actions......the physical body of the person is more than capable of extremely violent acts and should be eradicated.

I know you feel differently than I do in this respect but I have VERY LITTLE regard for the theory and applications of the fraud Wilhelm Wundt and his nonsense "Scientific Psychiatry".

Explanation: S&F!

Uhmmm?

Included in those dead one federal judge, one congresewoman, a nine year old, and multiple elderly.

I was not aware that Mrs Giffords died!





Please confirm or deny whether she was 'killed' by Jared.

Now as to the 'mentally unfit defence' ...

If they 'make' him sane enough [ie fit ] to stand trial and he is then found not guilty by reason of insanity for the 'crimes' he alledgedly commited, would that meen he is well enough to go free?

Personal Disclosure: As long as he is considered unfit to stand trial, he is incarcerated!

Which do you prefer?

reply to post by filosophia


Something is not quite right about the whole incident, the alleged perpetrator or the court case

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

So basically you cant link to one video he supposedly made that shows his face? The college video has "him" or someone filming, so no face.

Well, I know it wasn't the reply you were looking for, but when the implication was made that I was basically standing on and referring to bogus evidence for my point, I did reply. I noticed...despite asking multiple times...for my evidence, you fail to so much as post a reply to validate your own position now.

Was my request to back your claim about Jared's little trip to the community college unreasonable? Claiming it was somehow not him because he doesn't turn the camera around to highlight his ugly mug is difficult to back up but surely you have more than accusations toward others?

I rarely ever pursue baseless babble people make toward the things I voice in opinion or outright state as accepted fact..but this one annoys more than most, so it's worth this one followup anyway.

You are the *ONLY* person I have ever heard even joke about that nut job not being the man holding the camera for his Com College melt down. I really WOULD like to hear what lead you to such a serious claim..if anything exists to back it.

Thanks.... I really look forward to your support for your almost unique claim in this instance.

I think everyone is a little crazy. If you do someting as serious as murder its no excuse and you should be locked up for life at the very least. Fine, youre crazy. If the jury cant sleep at night knowing they gave the death penalty to someone who didnt know what they were doing then thats definatley no reason to lighten a sentence. If someones sick enough to kill someone they NEED to be locked up for life. Im not talking about self defense or any other justifiable reason to take a life on purpose or accidently but cold blooded murder. No parole or special treatment, just off the streets for good. Whether you know right from wrong or not, you dont belong in society if you cant control yourself. Maybe its time to make the law so that people claiming to be "unfit" or showing any signs that they are get thrown in a 4' by 4' cell similar to solitary but way worse. People wouldnt be so quick to point the blame elsewhere if waiting for trial was worse than going to jail. Either that or make the "holding for trial cell" in a max security prison shower.

How do you feel about the "mentally unfit" defense in court?

That's tricky. If someone really is mentally unfit then I'm all for that being a valid defense. Many mentally ill people can't distinguish right from wrong. However, I'm thinking it is over used. So the court has to be VERY sure if they accept it.

There are several tests that he would have been given to determine if he was mentally fit. Just looking at someone smirking isn't the legal way a determination like that is made.