ABB not sane, will not be found guilty.

[Malthus]

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

Exactly so: where people have agency, they can be deterred from committing offences by the threat of punishment; a person who has committed crimes in the past (and has served his or her sentence) is presumed to be in the same position as everyone else, with this exception: they generally face harsher punishment for re-offence (designed, as it were, to balance the deterrence against offence in their case).

In contrast, a person who commits offences because they are insane lacks agency. They cannot be deterred from committing future offences by threat of punishment. If the threat they pose to the public rises above some amount determined by a balancing excercise (their liberty interest vs. threat to public), they should be confined.

[Barrister]

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

Exactly so: where people have agency, they can be deterred from committing offences by the threat of punishment; a person who has committed crimes in the past (and has served his or her sentence) is presumed to be in the same position as everyone else, with this exception: they generally face harsher punishment for re-offence (designed, as it were, to balance the deterrence against offence in their case).

In contrast, a person who commits offences because they are insane lacks agency. They cannot be deterred from committing future offences by threat of punishment. If the threat they pose to the public rises above some amount determined by a balancing excercise (their liberty interest vs. threat to public), they should be confined.

Except there exists a class of people who apparently can not be deterred from committing further offences.  When I see a guy in docket with a six page record and 100+ convictions, clearly specific deterrence is not working.

It seems to me you want to classify the criminally insane as 'not people', just by dressing it up with language of "laking agency".  I can't agree to that.

[Malthus]

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

Exactly so: where people have agency, they can be deterred from committing offences by the threat of punishment; a person who has committed crimes in the past (and has served his or her sentence) is presumed to be in the same position as everyone else, with this exception: they generally face harsher punishment for re-offence (designed, as it were, to balance the deterrence against offence in their case).

In contrast, a person who commits offences because they are insane lacks agency. They cannot be deterred from committing future offences by threat of punishment. If the threat they pose to the public rises above some amount determined by a balancing excercise (their liberty interest vs. threat to public), they should be confined.

Except there exists a class of people who apparently can not be deterred from committing further offences.  When I see a guy in docket with a six page record and 100+ convictions, clearly specific deterrence is not working.

It seems to me you want to classify the criminally insane as 'not people', just by dressing it up with language of "laking agency".  I can't agree to that.

Well, presumably people with such dockets draw longer and longer sentences? And if the offences in question were murder (rather that doing drugs or shoplifting), they would in fact eventually be sentenced to indefinite detention under Canada's "dangerous offender" legislation, much like the insane, right? [You do remember we are talking about killing people - I assume you do not routinely have crooks on your docket who have "100+ convictions" for murder ... ]

I do not see that engaging in the balancing exercise I advocate is the same as declaring the criminally insane 'not people'. If you do, I suppose there is no more to be said.

[Viking]

BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. 

[KRonn]

If the guy is found insane, then I'd think all the more stronger reason to incarcerate him for life. Since he can't help what he does, and he's killed many children and others, what could be a rationale for letting him run free again?

[Barrister]

BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. 

So think how lucky you guys are that we're sharing our legal knowledge and experience with you for free!

[Viking]

If the guy is found insane, then I'd think all the more stronger reason to incarcerate him for life. Since he can't help what he does, and he's killed many children and others, what could be a rationale for letting him run free again?

Sound medical reasoning? Once he has his pills and takes them regularly, convinces his psychiatrist that he knows what he did was wrong and he'll get let out on supervised release or some sort of care in the community like any other psychotic schitzophrenic.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So in Canada and Norway is it rare for people to be in hospitals forever? My wife isn't in psychiatric but a lot of admissions stop in regular hospital psych wards en route to permanent beds at a State psychiatric hospital. She says that a large number of psychiatric patients in the State system have been continuously residential patients at State hospitals for over 10 years, with no real potential for ever being released.

Note that these aren't all criminal admissions, but about 50% of the system in Virginia is comprised of admissions who were sent into psychiatric facilities from the criminal court system. The reason it is so high is because apparently these types of people are very often never able to meet a medical board's definition of "safe from inflicting harm on self or others" and thus are permanent residents.

It's not exactly prison, though. I've been in the State hospitals, they generally have a lot of freedom of movement and access to a lot of amenities prisoners simply do not have. Even the lifers tend to go into town on supervised trips to stores and such, so it isn't really the same as being imprisoned for life.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There was a guy here who walked into a convenience store with a big knife and stabbed two teenagers to death basically because he was psychotic and having a true break from reality. He's been in a State hospital for 15+ years. Some years back it was very controversial that this guy was regularly being taken into town with minimal supervision to get ice cream from Dairy Queen and such, people were outraged. But the fact of the matter was he was not imprisoned so his movements were governed by what his caretakers felt he could be safely exposed to, so that guy may never be released from the hospital because of his mental illness but it's also not quite accurate to say he's imprisoned.

[Razgovory]

It's not a lot of fun, I can tell you that.

[Maximus]

BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. 

But at what cost?

[Viking]

So in Canada and Norway is it rare for people to be in hospitals forever?

The practice so far has been to focus soley on the medical needs of the patient rather than public perception of justice. The vast majority are not the criminally insane but rather the normally insane. The goal of psychiatric health care has been tro try and integrate people requiring psychiatric care into society and keep them part of it - this is done for medical reasons, it results in happier and healthier patients.

Norwegian psychiatric doctors have consistently, when asked by the press, said that he might be released (partially or even completely), but that he will be in the psychiatric care system for the rest of his life. But, as a person on a norwegian forum discussing this said; "I wouldn't want to be the doctor signing the release papers". 

[Viking]

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2FSprsml-og-svar-6710176.html

Questions and answers

1 What do the experts' conclusion?

Anders Behring Brevik, according to the experts, not criminal tilregning because he is psychotic with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

2 How long has he been psychotic?

It does not psychiatrists on, beyond saying that it "has taken place over a longer period of time."

3 Why do the experts that he is psychotic?

He has several serious delusions and complete lack of empathy. He believes he is chosen to decide who shall live and die, that he may be the new head of Norway, and that he can be destroyed at any time.

4 What happens next?

The declaration shall be quality assured by the forensic commission. Usually it takes approx. one month, but this time it takes probably longer.

5 What kind of decisions can the forensic commission take?

It can make comments, ask for detailed answers or rejecting the report. Of the 500 mental health issues this year, the Commission has just rejected one report.

6 Can the court overrule the psychiatrists?

The court is free to consider the evidence, or ask for new experts. But in practice it happens almost never.

7 What does compulsory mental health care?

Patients with "severe mental disorder", usually psychotic, can be kept to a psychiatric institution subject to treatment. This may apply for life if the patient is not healthy or is deemed dangerous to the environment.

8 When he is transferred to a psychiatric institution?

It will be decided after the Commission has considered the statement from psychiatrists.

9 What kind of institution, he must be treated by?

Compulsory mental health care can only happen at an institution that has received special approval from the Health Directorate. For Behring Breivik's part is probably the security department at Dikemark.

10 If the court?

Yes. If he is sentenced to compulsory psychiatric care, he transferred to a security department of a hospital.

11 Are there any differences in such a court and an ordinary court?

In principle not.

12 Will Behring Breivik be allowed to give evidence at the trial?

Yes. He gets the same opportunity to comment on their actions

13 How often should his condition re-evaluated?

A verdict must be extended by the court every 3 years. When such extensions are added to the original verdict of reason. It is therefore not a new review of the case.

14 What does the court when the condition is evaluated again?

Then take the court only as to whether the conditions for compulsory mental health care are present. What matters is whether he still poses a danger to society.

15 Who will evaluate his condition?

Responsible physician determines Behring Breivik treatment, within a given confidence level. The doctor can not move the patient without the consent of the prosecuting authority.

16 What happens if the doctor and prosecutors disagree?

When the hospital's Control Commission headed by a judge to decide what security measures are adequate.

17 What happens if the doctors think is healthy?

He may still be trapped if the court believes he is a danger to the environment.

18 Will there be a new trial if he is declared healthy and not a danger to the environment?

No.

[Malthus]

If the guy is found insane, then I'd think all the more stronger reason to incarcerate him for life. Since he can't help what he does, and he's killed many children and others, what could be a rationale for letting him run free again?

Sound medical reasoning? Once he has his pills and takes them regularly, convinces his psychiatrist that he knows what he did was wrong and he'll get let out on supervised release or some sort of care in the community like any other psychotic schitzophrenic.

So far, the best medical evidence (from Zoups) is that there is always a considerable risk of relapse.

[Malthus]

BB, Malthus, I just want to point out that you guys could be doing what you are doing here for money, it's called being a lawyer and you can bill people for doing it. It's usually done with a person called a Judge keepig score. 

But at what cost?

Well, BB's paid by the state, presumably in the form of stale buns from a dumpster today and the promise of a gynormus pension of fabulous luxury when he retires at the ripe age of 50. So that's okay.

You really don't want to know what my firm bills me out at.