Mental Impairement in Murder Trials

There are court proceedings underway in Australia for a person accussed for the murder of six people, including a 10 yo girl and a 4 month old baby boy, when he drove his car down a busy Melbourne pedestrian footpath. Media states he is blaming the events on the illuminati. Saying he was under extreme stress which caused his mental breakdown. Link,

It appears mental impairment may be used as a defence.

Austrlian mental impairement and sentencing advice:

1. reduce the offender's moral culpability (but not his or her legal responsibility) for the offence – this could affect the weight given to just punishment and denunciation as purposes of sentencing the offender
2. influence the type of sentence that could be imposed and the conditions in which the sentence could be served
3. reduce the weight given to deterrence as a purpose of sentencing – this would depend on the nature and severity of the mental impairment and how this impairment affected the mental capacity of the offender at the time of his or her offending and at the time of sentencing
4. Increase the hardship experienced by an offender in prison if he or she suffered from mental impairment at the time of sentencing
5. justify a less severe sentence where there was a serious risk that imprisonment could have a significant adverse effect on the offender's mental health.
Link

My question is can a sane person kill? Couldn't we say all murderers are mentally impaired, without exception?

Personally I don't understand the logic of mental impairement being used as a defence in murder trials. That anyone who murders, except cases of self defense, have already proved they are mentally impaired and unfit to be free among the community. In these cases, shouldn't governments mandate that people found guilty be given a life sentence without parole?

a reply to: glend

Based on the quote you posted, it is not a defense. It is just something that should be taken into account at sentencing.

In the US, impairment is a legal term meaning something less than legal insanity, which is usually defined as a mental illness that either 1. doesn't allow a person to tell right from wrong, or 2. allows a person to see right from wrong but compels him to do wrong. It is the idea that it is beyond the person's will to chose because of a mental illness. When one is found NGI, one is sentenced to a mental health institution instead of a prison. One is then required to remain there until the mental illness no longer makes the person a danger to himself or others. This usually takes quite a long time, if ever.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

mental illness that either 1. doesn't allow a person to tell right from wrong, or 2. allows a person to see right from wrong but compels him to do wrong.

Couldn't you diagnose pedophiles and serial rapist under those prerequisites? If a persons brain lacks the empathy or morals to operate in society then mental illness shouldn't even be contemplated. If they aren't tolerant of community standards then the community should not be tolerant of them, if they understand it, or not. They should be imprisoned for life with minimum amenities for the crimes they have committed.

I think we are being far to soft.

I think it is a defence . If they are found not fit to stand trial. Usually they are evaluated with the hopes they are found to be sane in order to prosecute. Even though they are clearly mad. It's best to say they are not.

a reply to: glend

It's a value judgment. If we are being soft, it's been going on for quite some time now.

It's not just the lack of empathy or morals, it's the lack of the ability to realize empathy is needed in a particular situation. There was a case I was involved with some years ago where a 25 year old man threw his mother out of a 4th floor window. He was diagnosed with a specific type of schizophrenia where he saw his mother as a demon. He was found not guilty but sent to a locked, state run, mental health facility. He would only be released when and if he was ever treated to a degree that he was no longer a threat to himself or society.

It's somewhat equivalent to a person who has a seizure while driving and then causes an accident in which a person dies. Due to a defect that does not have to do with empathy or morals, he caused the death of another human being. In that situation he wouldn't be allowed to drive anymore, but wouldn't have to go to jail or a mental facility either.

originally posted by: glend
There are court proceedings underway in Australia for a person accussed for the murder of six people, including a 10 yo girl and a 4 month old baby boy, when he drove his car down a busy Melbourne pedestrian footpath. Media states he is blaming the events on the illuminati. Saying he was under extreme stress which caused his mental breakdown. ...
It appears mental impairment may be used as a defence.

Of course impairment is a defense. The very nature of punishment/torture depends on the state of mind of the perp. If I was driving along and a condor flew into my window, and in the ensuing kaos I ran over a pedestrian, should I receive the same punishment/torture as the person who deliberately plowed into a crowd, intending to kill as many as possible? 'Intent' is an important factor.

My question is can a sane person kill? Couldn't we say all murderers are mentally impaired, without exception?

Yes, it is insanity to commit violence upon others. No one visits deliberate harm against others, unless he hosts a 'belief' or other! 'Beliefs' are insanity!

Personally I don't understand the logic of mental impairement being used as a defence in murder trials.

Why don't we try children as adults? Because they are mentally impaired! Why don't we try the mentally impaired as adults, because they are 'children'.

That anyone who murders, except cases of self defense, have already proved they are mentally impaired and unfit to be free among the community. In these cases, shouldn't governments mandate that people found guilty be given a life sentence without parole?

Wow, you jump immediately from they are insane, to going on to punish them by taking away their life! Hos vengeful!
And much of the insanity regarding punishing people is the erroneous assumption of 'free-will/choice'! As there is none, history has long shown that punishment/torture doesn't work as desired (as if the false assumption was true).
Rather than torture (more of the same old fruitless insanity), what about 'healing'? A healed person is now ready to re-enter society, even if the 'healing' took 20 minutes!

Imposing prison/torture for those who have no 'free-will/choice' is insanity, equal to the murderer.

a reply to: glend

My question is can a sane person kill? Couldn't we say all murderers are mentally impaired, without exception?

Of course sane people can kill, it's done all the time. Governments give their soldiers license to murder people they don't even know.

I don't know about Australia but in the UK an insanity plea can be a double edged sword. Yes they might get off with a lighter sentence but if the crime was specifically horrific they could be given a sentence, Not time related but what is called "detained on her majesties pleasure".
That ladies and gentlemen can be 6 months but more likely the use of it is very serious so they may be looking on life.
That's real life till they die not the technical life some criminals get that lasts 15 years but they get out on good behavior after 7 years.

I have always believed, that a person who is capable of killing another human, when their own life is not on the line, is insane, or mentally defective.

If you have such derangement, that ending human life can have some sort of excuse that can justify it, I think your brain does not work correctly. You are not right in the head.