ABB not sane, will not be found guilty.

[Barrister]

It's not a switch.  If someone goes off their meds they gradually deteriorate and if receiving any kind of supervision that can be picked up pretty quickly.

Seems still kinda risky. Obviously if they want to go off their meds and are subject to supervision, they will have an incentive to skip town to avoid the supervision - while they are still 'normal'. Given that the disease does not impair intelligence necessarily, particularly when controlled, there is a chance for them to do this successfully. 

If it is the case that the consequences of them going fully insane when the meds wear off are the potential for another mass murder, I can see the case for indefinite detention - thus precluding the scenario.

Except they don't go off their meds planning on going crazy - they go off their meds because they think they can handle it without them.  Hence they're not going to skip town, because that would be admitting they need their meds in order to be normal in the first place.

[Razgovory]

Update: There will still be a trial which will not find him innocent or guilty but rather determin the facts.

I've been trying to find some concrete evidence that he will go to prison if he is found sane after a few years; but I can't find any. The case seems to be that everybody expects the government to do something about it while nobody seems to be able to suggest any legal reason for the government to do so.

If he really was insane when he committed the crime, and is subsequently cured, there is no reason to imprison him - at least, under our system.

To my knowledge though, paranoid schizophrenia is not currently a curable condition ... at best, it is controllable.

I talked to a friend of mine who works with people who work in the equivalent institution here i Trondheim that ABB will probably serve in Oslo and in addition to explaining to me the difference between Psychopathic (born evil) and Psychotic (evil because of brain chemistry) he explained how the system worked and he is very distressed by this. He is part of the multicultural left, though I've moved him away from the Israel is evil position he held before, and he told me that if his doctor deems it right for his treatment and his doctor doesn't consider him a danger to society he will be released, but, like any other Paranoid Schitzophrenic he will be under involuntary medical supervision the rest of his life. So, in a few years you might see ABB on short furloughs from hospital and in a few more years you might see him realeased into an open psychiatric care home and a few years later free with a duty to report regularly to a doctor.

The attitude in Norway seems to be that this is unjust. ABB needs to be punished. This isn't an attitude that Norwegian society has held before. Criminals are to be reformed and returned to society, not punished. In a sense multicultural-norway is experiencing exactlly the same emotions that ABB seems to have experienced in his youth when a gang of immigrants at his school beat him up regularly and escaped punishment.

I'm guessing you aren't translating these phrases correctly in English.  Psychopathy isn't really used much in English.  There is nothing "Evil" about being psychotic.  Psychotic is where you have hallucinations or your words thoughts are all confused.  Generally they aren't more violent then the ordinary person.

Sociopathy is not considered an excuse for criminal behavior.  In fact you'll find a very high percentage of sociopaths in jail.   Psychosis often is.  A Sociopath might kill someone because they want their money, a Psychotic might kill someone because it's the only way to prevent the PTA from spying on him.

Actually, what it this sounds like is making certain political beliefs a mental illness.

[Malthus]

It's not a switch.  If someone goes off their meds they gradually deteriorate and if receiving any kind of supervision that can be picked up pretty quickly.

Seems still kinda risky. Obviously if they want to go off their meds and are subject to supervision, they will have an incentive to skip town to avoid the supervision - while they are still 'normal'. Given that the disease does not impair intelligence necessarily, particularly when controlled, there is a chance for them to do this successfully. 

If it is the case that the consequences of them going fully insane when the meds wear off are the potential for another mass murder, I can see the case for indefinite detention - thus precluding the scenario.

Except they don't go off their meds planning on going crazy - they go off their meds because they think they can handle it without them.  Hence they're not going to skip town, because that would be admitting they need their meds in order to be normal in the first place.

I don't follow your logic.

Yes, they skip the meds because they think they don't need 'em (and they have distressing side-effects).

But having made that choice, and knowing they would get in deep shit from their case worker if s/he finds out they are not taking their meds (and has ways of knowing this), why *wouldn't* they avoid the supervision if they could?

I sure as hell would, if someone was trying to *force* me to take some nasty meds *I know I don't need* and I wanted to avoid taking them.

[Fate]

One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.

[Scipio]

This is why the M'Naghten rule is the best rule for criminal insanity.

[Malthus]

One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".

[Fate]

One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".

That's up to you law-talkers. Thems just the epidemiological facts.

[Ideologue]

My vision is a world without prisons as we know them.  Death penalty for some, rehabilitation for others.  (Guess where this guy lands.)

[Barrister]

One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".

My understanding is that schizophrenics require fairly regular tweaking of their meds, but not that they can't be controlled with medication.

Bringing things down to statistics gets tricky though.  What if I can show that certain classifications of offenders are 80%, 90%, or more, likely to re-offend.  We have statistical model that can already identify them.  Should we lock them up indefinitely, even without them committing an offence?

s. 718.1 covers the fundamental purpose of sentencing - a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender.  Dealing with the mentally ill knocks out that second leg of the fundamental purpose - you're dealing with those with little to no moral culpability.

[Barrister]

My vision is a world without prisons as we know them.  Death penalty for some, rehabilitation for others.  (Guess where this guy lands.)

And if you can predict with near certainty who needs the death penalty, and who needs rehabilitation, you have superpowers far in advance of modern science.

[Ideologue]

And yet I remain unappreciated.  It's tragic.

[Malthus]

One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".

My understanding is that schizophrenics require fairly regular tweaking of their meds, but not that they can't be controlled with medication.

Bringing things down to statistics gets tricky though.  What if I can show that certain classifications of offenders are 80%, 90%, or more, likely to re-offend.  We have statistical model that can already identify them.  Should we lock them up indefinitely, even without them committing an offence?

s. 718.1 covers the fundamental purpose of sentencing - a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender.  Dealing with the mentally ill knocks out that second leg of the fundamental purpose - you're dealing with those with little to no moral culpability.

We are talking about a totally different regime with different purposes - not sentencing a sane criminal, but deciding if a person who is insane (and thus not morally culpable) must be locked up, not as a punishment, but for the protection of society.

I can see a fundamental difference between saying "statistically, 20% of bank robbers re-offend" and "statistically, this insane person has a 20% chance of a relapse into insanity".

The difference is this: the criminal who re-offends makes a concious choice to do so; each offence is an entirely seperate crime, for which they are morally culpable. The criminal cannot be punished in advance for a crime they have not committed.

With an insane person it is different, because insanity takes away the ability to make morally-binding choices. Assume that if the person has a relapse into insanity there is a good chance he will kill again. Again, his killing is would not be morally culpable. His freedom from coercive supervision is a value that has to be measured against public safety - but there is no element of "punishment" involved.

[Barrister]

One of the dirty secrets that we never tell schizophrenics is that about 40% of the time they will go into a psychotic relapse within 2 years even if they have perfect adherence to their medication. Although, the 2 year relapse rate is 80% in the absence of anti-psychotics.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it supports the notion that this fellow should not be let out even if currently "controlled".

My understanding is that schizophrenics require fairly regular tweaking of their meds, but not that they can't be controlled with medication.

Bringing things down to statistics gets tricky though.  What if I can show that certain classifications of offenders are 80%, 90%, or more, likely to re-offend.  We have statistical model that can already identify them.  Should we lock them up indefinitely, even without them committing an offence?

s. 718.1 covers the fundamental purpose of sentencing - a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender.  Dealing with the mentally ill knocks out that second leg of the fundamental purpose - you're dealing with those with little to no moral culpability.

We are talking about a totally different regime with different purposes - not sentencing a sane criminal, but deciding if a person who is insane (and thus not morally culpable) must be locked up, not as a punishment, but for the protection of society.

I can see a fundamental difference between saying "statistically, 20% of bank robbers re-offend" and "statistically, this insane person has a 20% chance of a relapse into insanity".

The difference is this: the criminal who re-offends makes a concious choice to do so; each offence is an entirely seperate crime, for which they are morally culpable. The criminal cannot be punished in advance for a crime they have not committed.

With an insane person it is different, because insanity takes away the ability to make morally-binding choices. Assume that if the person has a relapse into insanity there is a good chance he will kill again. Again, his killing is would not be morally culpable. His freedom from coercive supervision is a value that has to be measured against public safety - but there is no element of "punishment" involved.

In any event you want to imprison someone not because of anything that have done, but because of risk to the public.  Once you go down the road of "preventative detention" why on earth should it be limited only to the mentally ill?  Why not lock up anyone who poses the same level of risk?

[Malthus]

In any event you want to imprison someone not because of anything that have done, but because of risk to the public.  Once you go down the road of "preventative detention" why on earth should it be limited only to the mentally ill?  Why not lock up anyone who poses the same level of risk?

Because the mentally ill lack agency. That's why they are not "guilty" when they commit what would otherwise be offences.

[Barrister]

In any event you want to imprison someone not because of anything that have done, but because of risk to the public.  Once you go down the road of "preventative detention" why on earth should it be limited only to the mentally ill?  Why not lock up anyone who poses the same level of risk?

Because the mentally ill lack agency. That's why they are not "guilty" when they commit what would otherwise be offences.

So what?  We're talking about situations where no offence has been committed yet.