Poll
Question:
Should the insanity defense be protected by the U.S. Constitution?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 2
Option 2: No
votes: 2
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/
QuoteThe 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.
I don't know, but it comes in handy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2012, 11:24:38 PM
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.
I don't see what the recourse would be for the seriously ill without it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 12:22:27 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2012, 11:24:38 PM
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. :mellow:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2012, 12:45:56 AM
Vengeance isn't typically a valid sentencing objective though. :mellow:
It is one of the purposes of criminal justice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 01:04:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2012, 12:45:56 AM
Vengeance isn't typically a valid sentencing objective though. :mellow:
It is one of the purposes of criminal justice.
Maybe if you're Hammurabi. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2012, 01:04:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2012, 12:45:56 AM
Vengeance isn't typically a valid sentencing objective though. :mellow:
It is one of the purposes of criminal justice.
It's not listed in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada. :mellow:
You win. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2012, 01:33:32 AM
It's not listed in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada. :mellow:
A fact not likely to sway the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constituion's due process guarantees.
Also
There is a incapicitation rationale if the the determination of no future harm involves some material number of false negatives
Not everything belongs in the constitution.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2012, 02:49:06 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2012, 02:49:06 AM
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.
I was answering the question. In my experience "should" and "does" are not synonyms.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2012, 11:17:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2012, 02:49:06 AM
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.
I was answering the question. In my experience "should" and "does" are not synonyms.
My point was that Tim's question sucked.
I don't think that the US Constitution, in requiring due process, requires that the insanity defense be available. However, since some state supreme courts have ruled that it does, while others have ruled otherwise, the US Supreme Court should have taken the case in order to resolve the issue.
Note that even if the US Supreme Court rules that the Constitution doesn't require that the insanity defense be available, states would still have the option of making it available.
I don't think the Constitution protects this, but it's a good thing. Some people deserve hospitalization rather then imprisonment. It's not like hospitalization means you get a free ride. You kill a person, you'll likely be in that hospital the rest of your life. It's not pleasant. Still these are often basically decent people. When they become medicated and treated they often become extremely remorseful over their actions. Do people abuse the defense? Sure, people try to abuse every law.
I suppose the big difference between a criminal who knows what he's doing and a crazy person is that the criminal inspires contempt. The crazy person inspires pity. You meet a few people who are really disturbed, and can't help but feel pity. It's a terrible thing to be prisoner of your own mind.
I think we need to start questioning the idea of incarceration as the norm of the criminal justice system.
As capital punishment is all but ruled out in most of the world, we should rethink secured penal colonies.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 29, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
I think we need to start questioning the idea of incarceration as the norm of the criminal justice system.
As capital punishment is all but ruled out in most of the world, we should rethink secured penal colonies.
you said 'penal'
teehee.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 29, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
I think we need to start questioning the idea of incarceration as the norm of the criminal justice system.
As capital punishment is all but ruled out in most of the world, we should rethink secured penal colonies.
That's never gonna happen.