The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the rights of criminal defendants, declaring that states can bar them from using the so-called insanity defense in a ruling involving a Kansas man sentenced to death for killing four members of his family. The justices ruled 6-3 that a 1995 Kansas law eliminating the insanity defense - which bars holding criminally responsible mentally impaired defendants who do not know right from wrong - did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The justices affirmed a 2018 decision by the Kansas Supreme Court upholding the conviction of the man at the center of the case, James Kraig Kahler. Under the Kansas law, defendants cannot argue they were insane and unable to make a moral judgment as an excuse to criminal liability. But the law allowed defendants to argue that, due to mental defect, they did not intend to commit the crime.
Originally posted by blackrams: I happen to agree with Kansas.
I am not sure I can agree.
My wife has worked at the State (Texas) hospital for over twenty years. They deal with the mentally insane, both happenstance and forensically. Forensically being criminal cases. The mission of the State hospital is to make those that need it sane again, or at least able to interact in public (drug assisted mostly).
Criminally, some are too insane to be tried. The treatment is to enable them to stand trial. Some are ruled innocent (?) due to insanity. The treatment is to enable them to again be able to interact, live, in public. Most will not make it and in effect imprisoned. It's not like they get to walk free.
We also, and have for years, take care of a mentally challenged individual, as family.
I would also have to say, that to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, is no easy deal. Defendants are examined by a team of experts and findings are presented to the court and argued by the defense and prosecution for the court's determination.
Interesting There is no cure for mental illness and sadly enough there are plenty of people out there that do not know or understand laws. But I don't think knowing the difference or not knowing the difference should be argued in court. Plenty of people do not know all of the laws that we have to follow, that is why ignorance of the law is not an excuse. So, for example, should a mentally ill person be let go if they raped a child just because they did not know right from wrong? Clearly not, so the SCOTUS made the correct decision by closing a loop hole that was used many times over the years.
1. Define'mental illness' in the context applicable to the thread topic please. 2. No cure? No, but there are plenty of treatments that very often do work or at least control the affliction. 3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There's a not-very-fine line between not bothering to inform one's self of the law, and not being able to do so. Our constitution mandates that justice be applied equally to all..... Scenario. 1. You're driving down the road at 70mph, the speed limit but unbeknownst to you, 20 minutes beforehand someone has had a blowout, swerved offf the road and knocked down a 55 mph speedlimit sign. 20 miles farther down the road, police pull you over, write you a ticket for drivng 15 miles over the posted speed limit. You protest that you never saw a sign and the policeman says "Tell it to the judge". You are ignorant of the law, thru no fault of your own. The judge hears your story, doesn't believe you because the 55mph sign is now up and you have to pay the fine because you were 'ignorant of the law.'
2. A person is born with a mental illness, has absolutely no mental concept of right or wrong, nor does he/she have the mental capacity to learn that concept, much less grasp the idea of right from wrong and just views those who try to control them as being "mean people'. Gets in an argument (or not) and harms or even kills a neighbor. He's ignorant of the law regarding assualt/manslaughter, or the fact that laws are even there. Do we send him to prison or stick the needle in his arm because he's 'ignorant of the law'?
The defendant in both cases are "ignorant of the law" thru no fault of their own. One may have a lighter wallet but the other may forfeit their freedom or life...thru no fault of their on.
I agree the insanity defense has often been abused but no state should throw the baby out with the bath water, unless each of us individuals are willing to be the one to look the retarded guy in the eye as we inject him with deadly and toxic chemicals...
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-23-2020).]
I agree the insanity defense has often been abused but no state should throw the baby out with the bath water, unless each of us individuals are willing to be the one to look the retarded guy in the eye as we inject him with deadly and toxic chemicals...
In the case of KS, the baby was not thrown out with the bath water (IMHO), mental "condition" is allowed to be considered with in guidance.
As you said earlier: Honestly, "correctional institutions" do not correct anyone, but what they can do is protect the public from those who might do us harm.
The article you linked to states the same thing regarding those found GBMI.
"Given the dearth of treatment services available for people in prisons with mental illnesses and the disproportionate number of prisoners who suffer from a mental illness, the reality is that many people with mental illnesses do not receive the treatment they require when they are in prison—regardless of whether they have been found GBMI or not."
problem Not solved, but warm fuzzy feeling inside because we "did something" regarding the issue.
One problem with our criminal justice system is that there are only two options for someone who has committed a crime: fines and/or incarceration. I think that is an oversimplification of the concept of "crime".
At some point, I would like to see offences analyzed and appropriate real correctional solutions applied. I don't pretend to know what the appropriate solution is for each crime, but I don't think that someone who has embezzled money should necessarily be treated the same as someone who has committed sexual assault.
Originally posted by williegoat: At some point, I would like to see offences analyzed and appropriate real correctional solutions applied. I don't pretend to know what the appropriate solution is for each crime, but I don't think that someone who has embezzled money should necessarily be treated the same as someone who has committed sexual assault.
I would think, hope, that is addressed by the sentencing guidelines.
I don know if you are asking me a question or not here? But for the record I don't claim to be anything more or less than a person with an opinion. That being said, I disagree with many opinions expressed here on PFF as well as people in general who I talk to. It is just human nature to have an opinion. Some we agree with, some are moot and some we disagree with. Fact on the other hand is a different subject. How data is interpreted depends on several factors: being a victim of a crime and the perpetrators claim a bogus legal defense and get away from the full extent of the law is one reason people think differently. And for this reason I am in agreement with the SCOTUS. I honestly don't care if a person is insane or not, they should be held accountable for their actions especially when people are harmed in a crime.
I suppose in the end, that is what it all comes down to. Whether a person or any given demographic or society as a whole cares or not. We do know tho, that a people tend to protect their own demographic above and sometimes, at the expense of, all others.
I suppose in the end, that is what it all comes down to. Whether a person or any given demographic or society as a whole cares or not. We do know tho, that a people tend to protect their own demographic above and sometimes, at the expense of, all others.
That's pretty close to some of the smartest stuff I've heard recently...but why do we act like this is something new? History alone tells us this is who we are! Tribal, from root to flower.
Listen, we either believe in (physical/mental) evolution, or we don't. Either way, we seem to need to be challenged, to move forward.
1. Define'mental illness' in the context applicable to the thread topic please.
I have faith that the system, as flawed as it is can decide that during a trial. I believe that taking away the loophole of an insanity defense is a good thing. People tend to feel pity for the mentally ill and a hatred for the frauds who just want to get away with crime. I view this SCOUTS decision as relieving any pressure to let a person off or anger for the attempt of manipulation. The jury are free of any pressure to view the case as is.
quote
2. No cure? No, but there are plenty of treatments that very often do work or at least control the affliction.
I have seen many people who take psychotropic medication to control moods or behavior, just stop taking the meds. They stop for several different reasons, but for the vast majority of people who take those medications, it is a choice. When they stop taking the meds they change.(RARELY do they become happy funny pleasant individuals who ever body loves to be around) This is a huge problem for the people around them, because very few people are forced to take the medications.
quote
3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There's a not-very-fine line between not bothering to inform one's self of the law, and not being able to do so.
I can't disagree, again you are correct. I guess I see the jury as being able to sort that out during the trial. Rather than me or anyone else deciding the case outside the court room.
quote
Our constitution mandates that justice be applied equally to all.....
I agree. And that should be decided by the jury having all the facts
quote
Scenario. 1. You're driving down the road at 70mph, the speed limit but unbeknownst to you, 20 minutes beforehand someone has had a blowout, swerved offf the road and knocked down a 55 mph speedlimit sign. 20 miles farther down the road, police pull you over, write you a ticket for drivng 15 miles over the posted speed limit. You protest that you never saw a sign and the policeman says "Tell it to the judge". You are ignorant of the law, thru no fault of your own. The judge hears your story, doesn't believe you because the 55mph sign is now up and you have to pay the fine because you were 'ignorant of the law.'
Ok, I see this as basically the same as a person getting a detracted driver ticket for driving while on the phone.
quote
2. A person is born with a mental illness, has absolutely no mental concept of right or wrong, nor does he/she have the mental capacity to learn that concept, much less grasp the idea of right from wrong and just views those who try to control them as being "mean people'. Gets in an argument (or not) and harms or even kills a neighbor. He's ignorant of the law regarding assualt/manslaughter, or the fact that laws are even there. Do we send him to prison or stick the needle in his arm because he's 'ignorant of the law'?
I have genuine sympathy for a case like this, but again I have faith in the system to argue the case to a result.
quote
The defendant in both cases are "ignorant of the law" thru no fault of their own. One may have a lighter wallet but the other may forfeit their freedom or life...thru no fault of their on.
I agree the insanity defense has often been abused but no state should throw the baby out with the bath water, unless each of us individuals are willing to be the one to look the retarded guy in the eye as we inject him with deadly and toxic chemicals...
Crime does not always result in a just end, and I don't necessarily think a "retarded guy" should be put to death. I just think that even if the person is mentally ill, that they should not be unjustly sentenced harshly or lightly, the punishment should fit the crime, as decided by the jury who have all of the facts to make the most informed decision.
I suppose in the end, that is what it all comes down to. Whether a person or any given demographic or society as a whole cares or not. We do know tho, that a people tend to protect their own demographic above and sometimes, at the expense of, all others.
You quoted me, but not necessarily represented my view?
Edit to admit that I neglected to quote rinselberg in the original post
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-23-2020).]
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I guess I see the jury as being able to sort that out during the trial. Rather than me or anyone else deciding the case outside the court room.
I agree. And that should be decided by the jury having all the facts.
I have genuine sympathy for a case like this, but again I have faith in the system to argue the case to a result.
Crime does not always result in a just end, ... I just think that even if the person is mentally ill, that they should not be unjustly sentenced harshly or lightly, the punishment should fit the crime, as decided by the jury who have all of the facts to make the most informed decision.
You say this yet agree with taking away from the jury what may well be an important aspect to the totality of the events. You do this outside the court room.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-24-2020).]
You say this yet agree with taking away from the jury what may well be an important aspect to the totality of the events. You do this outside the court room.
Absent any criminal prosecution, mental conditions exist. From 'mild' such as our (me/wife) live in care, to out patient, of people treated with drugs, to 'hospitalized' with severe issues, to full blow insane.
We handicap people all the time, for parking, expectations of ability, financial (school tuition), rental amounts, to food stamps. I contend mental condition is a handicap. It should be considered in all aspects of certain lives.
A jury, inside the court room and involved with the particulars of of a case, should be able to have all the particulars of a case.
You, outside the courtroom, want to remove a real aspect of a case.
I might correct myself from earlier.
If I am not mistaken, to be able to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, first it is argued before the judge for the ability to do so. Judged so to speak. Then, it is 'judged' by a jury. A jury you say you have faith in to get it right.
Absent any criminal prosecution, mental conditions exist. From 'mild' such as our (me/wife) live in care, to out patient, of people treated with drugs, to 'hospitalized' with severe issues, to full blow insane.
We handicap people all the time, for parking, expectations of ability, financial (school tuition), rental amounts, to food stamps. I contend mental condition is a handicap. It should be considered in all aspects of certain lives.
A jury, inside the court room and involved with the particulars of of a case, should be able to have all the particulars of a case.
You, outside the courtroom, want to remove a real aspect of a case.
I might correct myself from earlier.
If I am not mistaken, to be able to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, first it is argued before the judge for the ability to do so. Judged so to speak. Then, it is 'judged' by a jury. A jury you say you have faith in to get it right.
I kinda agree with you. In principal, but agree with the SCOTUS in the way they defined and argued against the insanity plea. It was abused to the point that it was argued to the Supreme Court. That in itself says that there is a problem with the system and it was addressed. I agree that a jury should have the sole responsibility to hear out the case, NOT an arbitrary law that boxes in the jury to a predisposed conclusion.
