The Insanity Defense and the Constitution

[jimmy olsen]

What say you Languish? Should the insanity defense be protected by the constitution?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/the-insanity-defense-and-the-constitution/

The Insanity Defense and the Constitution
By LINCOLN CAPLAN
constitutionally 
The United States Supreme Court was wrong when it decided on Monday not to accept an Idaho case that raises the question of whether a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to plead insanity as a defense. Idaho is one of four states that does not permit this rarely used but necessary defense. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the lack of an insanity defense under state law does not violate due process under the federal constitution.

The Supreme Court has long said generally that due process prohibits a court from holding anyone criminally responsible when doing so would offend a "principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." By disallowing the insanity defense, Idaho violates a fundamental principle of justice in seeking to punish someone who, because of mental illness, should not be held responsible for his crime.

In the Idaho case, John Delling was convicted of shooting and killing two of his friends because he believed they were taking "his energy" and, according to a psychologist, believed "he had to kill those that were killing him." Mr. Delling suffers from severe paranoid schizophrenia. He was, the psychologist said, "grossly psychotic" when he shot the men.

As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent from the Supreme Court's decision not to take the case, Idaho permits "the conviction of an individual who knew what he was doing, but had no capacity to understand that it was wrong." Mr. Delling was convicted of second-degree murder and received life without parole, the harshest available sentence.

This punishment serves no purpose for criminal justice. Mr. Delling's severe mental disorder blocks his understanding that the sentence was proper retribution for his crime and it doesn't deter others in his situation. Nor does it enhance public safety since states can civilly commit anyone who is found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity for an indefinite period, until they are no longer dangerous.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia allow the insanity defense. The Nevada Supreme Court held that abolishing the defense violates the Constitution and the California Supreme Court, likewise, has also ruled that "the insanity defense, in some formulation, is required by due process."

Because constitutional principles are at stake, the justices should have taken this case to resolve the conflict between the states. They should have ruled that Idaho violated the Constitution by depriving a psychotic individual the right to raise an insanity defense, when that person had no capacity to appreciate that his conduct was wrong.

[Razgovory]

I don't know, but it comes in handy.

[Admiral Yi]

This punishment serves no purpose for criminal justice. Mr. Delling's severe mental disorder blocks his understanding that the sentence was proper retribution for his crime and it doesn't deter others in his situation. Nor does it enhance public safety since states can civilly commit anyone who is found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity for an indefinite period, until they are no longer dangerous.

He forgot one: satisfaction for the family and friends of the victims.

I think it's a little weird not to have an insanity defense but don't think it's worthy of Constitutional protection.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't see what the recourse would be for the seriously ill without it.

[Barrister]

This punishment serves no purpose for criminal justice. Mr. Delling's severe mental disorder blocks his understanding that the sentence was proper retribution for his crime and it doesn't deter others in his situation. Nor does it enhance public safety since states can civilly commit anyone who is found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity for an indefinite period, until they are no longer dangerous.

He forgot one: satisfaction for the family and friends of the victims.

I think it's a little weird not to have an insanity defense but don't think it's worthy of Constitutional protection.

Vengeance isn't typically a valid sentencing objective though.

[Barrister]

I'm as law and order as they come.  And the insanity defence has been abused on some occasions.

But your true paranoid schizophrenic truly has no concept that what they are doing is wrong.  I can't imagine the justice system that wants to punish a person merely because they are severely sick.

[Admiral Yi]

Vengeance isn't typically a valid sentencing objective though.

It is one of the purposes of criminal justice.

[jimmy olsen]

Vengeance isn't typically a valid sentencing objective though.

It is one of the purposes of criminal justice.

Maybe if you're Hammurabi.

[Barrister]

Vengeance isn't typically a valid sentencing objective though.

It is one of the purposes of criminal justice.

It's not listed in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Admiral Yi]

You win.   

[The Minsky Moment]

It's not listed in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

A fact not likely to sway the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constituion's due process guarantees.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also
There is a incapicitation rationale if the the determination of no future harm involves some material number of false negatives

[Viking]

Not everything belongs in the constitution.

[garbon]

Not everything belongs in the constitution.

Tim's question as a little odd as really it's an opinion of whether or not one thinks that the constitution protects it.  Seems unlikely we'd have an amendment to add that.

[Valmy]

Maybe if you're Hammurabi.

Seriously?