Diminished Responsibility and Insanity

[Rock Hard]

Sparked by discussion in This thread.

 

Here's the UK Law:

 

"Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or [developmentally delayed]ed development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. "

 

Examples of conditions held to amount to diminished responsibility:

 

Perverted sexual desires that created irresistible impulses - R v Byrne (1960)

Depression - R v Gittens (1984) and R v Seers (1985)

Battered Woman Syndrome - R v Hobson (1997) and R v Ahluwalia [1992]

Paranoid psychosis, arising from his upbringing. - R v Sanderson (1994)

Alcoholism or drug addiction - R v Tandy (1989)

Post-natal depression and premenstrual tension can constitute a disease - R v Reynolds (1988)

Extreme jealousy (so called "Othello syndrome" - a state of morbid jealousy for which there is no cause) - R v Vinagre (1979)

Paranoid Personality disorder, thinking he was in greater danger than he was - R v Martin [2003]

 

Does it differ in your country?

 

What do you think about it?

[Bloodstain]

I think the best case of this is Vince Lee decapitating McLean on the greyhound bus. I think it is a very good rule.

[Zierro]

There is a difference between an excuse and an outright incapability. A paraplegic can't walk up a flight of stairs, so why blame him for it? A suicidal person can choose to not kill themselves, so it's no wonder some believe they are responsible for it. It's not like suicide is an involuntary action.

 

As for those examples, I think it's ridiculous to use drugs, jealousy, and sexual urges as excuses to kill someone. Also, I just think humans achieve much more through existentialism than through pointing fingers.

[stonewall337]

There is no excuse. Sure, not the death penalty if you are a [developmentally delayed], but still put them where they can't hurt others.

[Riku3220]

I agree with Zierro. Just because the person was "mentally unstable" at the time doesn't mean he should excused of the crime. The fact is that he did it and letting him off for insanity is just going to have them do it again they next time they become "mentally unstable".

[Nadril]

It seems like some people think that getting off on an Insanity charge just means they are scott free or something. You're still locked away but just in a mental institution instead.

[fakeitormakeit2]

"Crime of Passion", etc. that kind of stupid stuff. It is so illogical. The punishment is being lightened because you say you have a reason that drove you to do it... and your point? Does that make it any less wrong?

 

And they don't have like straightjacketed mental facilities anymore to the person above. The worst they have is mental wards were you keep unmanageable mental patients with full care. For the people who are actually unable to distinguish between right and wrong. etc it isn't there fault. For those who plead insanity to get off their charges, I find that disgusting.

[Bloodstain]

 

And they don't have like straightjacketed mental facilities anymore to the person above. The worst they have is mental wards were you keep unmanageable mental patients with full care. For the people who are actually unable to distinguish between right and wrong. etc it isn't there fault. For those who plead insanity to get off their charges, I find that disgusting.

 

Lololol.

 

Ok, first off

 

If you do use the insanity or whatever, and it succeeds, you are put into an institution. The big difference between jail and institution is that you are there INDEFINITELY. In other words, if they never think you are healthy enough to leave, you don't leave.

 

And I find it laughable that you think people plead insanity to get off their charges, considering it has a minuscule success rate

[RexMilotic]

Alcoholism or drug addiction - R v Tandy (1

 

That should not be in there, while the others can make sense. I do believe that anyone suffering from those should have to take more than counseling, and should be dealt with in a way similar to insanity cases (which normally take more time than a jail sentence).

[BlindBaker]

What if someone claims to be mentally unstable to get out of a murder? And maybe they're really good actors?

 

Besides that, I think these exceptions are completely necessary. My depressed alcoholic uncle snapped one day and, well... Let's just say this law would apply to him. That is, if he lived.

 

EDIT: Oh, and if he lived in the UK.

[Bloodstain]

What if someone claims to be mentally unstable to get out of a murder? And maybe they're really good actors?

 

 

Because it doesn't work like in the movies. He would have go through multiple evaluations from psychologists, and you would need to know what they were looking for and how to answer them. It's not like you plead insanity/mentally unstable and they take it lightly, insanity plea has a very small success rate.

 

E: If I remember right, it's used in something like .1% of cases (10 out of 1000), and the success rate is less than 20%

[BlindBaker]

What if someone claims to be mentally unstable to get out of a murder? And maybe they're really good actors?

 

 

Because it doesn't work like in the movies. He would have go through multiple evaluations from psychologists, and you would need to know what they were looking for and how to answer them. It's not like you plead insanity/mentally unstable and they take it lightly, insanity plea has a very small success rate.

Huh. I heard about a little girl who was smart enough to get out of treatment for her mental issues. It does happen.

 

Then again, she didn't commit a murder. Just assaulted her school nurse.

[Bloodstain]

 

Huh. I heard about a little girl who was smart enough to get out of treatment for her mental issues. It does happen.

 

Then again, she didn't commit a murder. Just assaulted her school nurse.

 

Got out of treatment for her mental issues? Sounds like you're talking about something else

[BlindBaker]

 

Huh. I heard about a little girl who was smart enough to get out of treatment for her mental issues. It does happen.

 

Then again, she didn't commit a murder. Just assaulted her school nurse.

 

Got out of treatment for her mental issues? Sounds like you're talking about something else

What do you mean? Every time she went to a psychiatrist, she knew just how to act to appear like she had nothing wrong with her.

[RexMilotic]

What if someone claims to be mentally unstable to get out of a murder? And maybe they're really good actors?

 

Besides that, I think these exceptions are completely necessary. My depressed alcoholic uncle snapped one day and, well... Let's just say this law would apply to him. That is, if he lived.

 

EDIT: Oh, and if he lived in the UK.

 

 

Insanity cases are longer than jail time.

[Bloodstain]

 

Huh. I heard about a little girl who was smart enough to get out of treatment for her mental issues. It does happen.

 

Then again, she didn't commit a murder. Just assaulted her school nurse.

 

Got out of treatment for her mental issues? Sounds like you're talking about something else

What do you mean? Every time she went to a psychiatrist, she knew just how to act to appear like she had nothing wrong with her.

 

Because your first post said that someone could fake being mentally ill to get out of murder, but you're talking about someone pretending not to be mentally ill.

 

 

 

What if someone claims to be mentally unstable to get out of a murder? And maybe they're really good actors?

 

Besides that, I think these exceptions are completely necessary. My depressed alcoholic uncle snapped one day and, well... Let's just say this law would apply to him. That is, if he lived.

 

EDIT: Oh, and if he lived in the UK.

 

 

Insanity cases are longer than jail time.

 

Quoting just to stress again what you said, they are indefinite until they decide you are ready.

[Rebdragon]

Insanity is used in less than 1% of cases and on the cases it is used it works less than a quarter of the time.

 

Stop living like you think hollywood is reality.

[Nadril]

Insanity is used in less than 1% of cases and on the cases it is used it works less than a quarter of the time.

 

Stop living like you think hollywood is reality.

 

I wanted to quote this (the 1% statistic) but I couldn't find the source.

[Bloodstain]

Insanity is used in less than 1% of cases and on the cases it is used it works less than a quarter of the time.

 

Stop living like you think hollywood is reality.

 

Here ya go

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:282575

 

Second article from the top

 

The frequency and rate of insanity pleas and acquittals are presented for the study states as well as descriptive data on the characteristics of persons pleading and acquitted NGRI. Overall, the insanity defense was raised in one percent of all felony cases. Further, only 26 percent of those raising the insanity defense were actually acquitted NGRI.

[Plugpoint]

My law teacher said there are about five to seven successful insanity pleas per year in the UK. The insanity law is a bit silly in parts anyway, it classes epileptics and diabetics with high blood sugar as insane.

[warri0r45]

I agree with Zierro. Just because the person was "mentally unstable" at the time doesn't mean he should excused of the crime. The fact is that he did it and letting him off for insanity is just going to have them do it again they next time they become "mentally unstable".

 

How about we make it compulsory that they get help for their problems and if they don't (or if they refused help prior to the crime), charge them like anyone else.

 

I think acquittal could be given a few circumstances:

 

1) It's proven by experts that the person has a mental disease

2) It's proven by experts that the mental disease significantly effects the person's behaviour

 

It's debatable how significant the effect would need to be, and I don't particularly want to get into that, but I think these rules are reasonable enough.

[Zierro]

But can't that be applied to nearly anything that has an effect on your behavior? A person who has been raped, abused, bullied, etc. for a long duration will most likely have a skewed set of morals. Or perhaps they watched their entire family die in a fire and went insane. Many criminals believe they are justified because something "lead them to do it". So where would we draw the line?

 

Personally I believe that, unless your body goes on auto-pilot, it was an accident, or you were completely unaware (referring to the mentally [developmentally delayed]ed), it was you who consciously committed the crime.

 

PS: Brain chemicals make up who you are. If you plea innocent because your brain chemicals forced you to do the crime, then the judge can sentence you to prison time because his brain chemicals made him do it. It wouldn't be right to call the judge unfair - it's not his fault that his brain chemicals are that way. I don't see how brain chemicals should excuse behavior, otherwise nobody would be to blame for anything. It's a road that we just shouldn't go down. It basically negates the idea of human choice - something we as humans need.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Zierro

[Bloodstain]

But can't that be applied to nearly anything that has an effect on your behavior? A person who has been raped, abused, bullied, etc. for a long duration will most likely have a skewed set of morals.

 

Those sound like mitigating factors to me, and would be taken into account at sentencing.

 

 

Personally I believe that, unless your body goes on auto-pilot, it was an accident, or you were completely unaware (referring to the mentally [developmentally delayed]ed), it was you who consciously committed the crime.

 

PS: Brain chemicals make up who you are. If you plea innocent because your brain chemicals forced you to do the crime, then the judge can sentence you to prison time because his brain chemicals made him do it. It wouldn't be right to call the judge unfair - it's not his fault that his brain chemicals are that way. I don't see how brain chemicals should excuse behavior, otherwise nobody would be to blame for anything. It's a road that we just shouldn't go down. It basically negates the idea of human choice - something we as humans need.

 

You're telling me someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic and for what ever reason is off their medication is in the same conscious, decision making state as you or I? I'm sure you heard about the greyhound bus decapitation a year (or was it two?) ago. It turned out that the offender had some serious mental problems and wasn't on his meds, and thought god was talking to him and telling him to kill the guy. He was in a VERY messed up state, and to sentence him to a lengthy sentence wouldn't have solved anything. One of the purposes of jail is to rehabilitate, if he wouldn't have committed the crime in a right state of mind and has mental issues, then a jail isn't going to do much for him.

 

He was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity and got sent to an mental institution, by the way.

[Zierro]

You're telling me someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic and for what ever reason is off their medication is in the same conscious, decision making state as you or I?

 

I believe I've said this somewhere before. You might have uncontrollable thoughts and urges running through your mind, but whether you act on them or not is on you. Unless of course, your body goes on auto-pilot, it was an accident, or you literally did not know any better.

 

I'm sure you heard about the greyhound bus decapitation a year (or was it two?) ago. It turned out that the offender had some serious mental problems and wasn't on his meds, and thought god was talking to him and telling him to kill the guy. He was in a VERY messed up state, and to sentence him to a lengthy sentence wouldn't have solved anything. One of the purposes of jail is to rehabilitate, if he wouldn't have committed the crime in a right state of mind and has mental issues, then a jail isn't going to do much for him.

 

What a ridiculous example. Thinking that god told you to do something is no justification at all.

 

1.) Sentencing people to jail isn't even an effective means of rehabilitating normal people, hence why the same people keep coming back to jail time and time again. Sadly, jail doesn't teach a lesson as much as it should. It's only effective at separating harmful people from the rest of society. A fitting place for a man who decapitates innocent people.

 

2.) You're putting a hell of a lot of faith into an insane man. He claimed that he thought god spoke to him. Isn't it also possible that it was just a fabricated excuse to get him out of trouble? "I'm clinically a schizophrenic. I can do whatever I want and say that it was god talking to me!" You can't just go off of what the criminal tells you. It's not exactly that hard to lie.

 

3.) You said he wouldn't have committed the crime if he were in "the right state of mind". How do you know that? Let me guess, the burden of proof is conveniently on me because there's no possible way to prove that he would have done so anyways?

 

4.) Let's even say for argument's sake that god did tell him to decapitate the man. Does that make it right? No, it makes god wrong.

 

I don't think I have the will to debate with someone who believes that killing someone because you're crazy and god told you to is okay, but having an outside dog is terrible. Your whole code of morality is completely backwards so arguing without some sort of grounds to work off of would be futile. But then again, it does sound interesting.

 

He was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity and got sent to an mental institution, by the way.

 

It's not really about the jail and mental institution thing. Neither are very good ways of "fixing" people. As long as they're away from the rest of society, I'm fine when it comes to that. What does bother me is the fact that people believe he was not responsible for what he did.

 

By the way, I just read the story. Apparently he was butchering the body and taunting police with the decapitated head. I thought his incentive was just to kill the man because god wanted him dead - not to have fun with it. Sounds to me like he just gets kicks off of horrifying people and used god as a ploy to take the responsibility off himself.

[Bloodstain]

 

What a ridiculous example. Thinking that god told you to do something is no justification at all.

 

1.) Sentencing people to jail isn't even an effective means of rehabilitating normal people, hence why the same people keep coming back to jail time and time again. Sadly, jail doesn't teach a lesson as much as it should. It's only effective at separating harmful people from the rest of society. A fitting place for a man who decapitates innocent people.

 

Agreed, which I never said it was effective. Except for the fitting place for a man who decaps people part. You seem to imply that he isn't worthy of rehabilitation, which is ridiculous.

 

2.) You're putting a hell of a lot of faith into an insane man. He claimed that he thought god spoke to him. Isn't it also possible that it was just a fabricated excuse to get him out of trouble? "I'm clinically a schizophrenic. I can do whatever I want and say that it was god talking to me!" You can't just go off of what the criminal tells you. It's not exactly that hard to lie.

 

3.) You said he wouldn't have committed the crime if he were in "the right state of mind". How do you know that? Let me guess, the burden of proof is conveniently on me because there's no possible way to prove that he would have done so anyways?

 

I'm assuming you did not follow the case very closely/at all. He was an immigrant with a history of problems, it wasn't a one time thing. I also remember reading in our paper an article in which they mention an article that was run in the Edmonton paper (where he lived), in which it detailed an old Aboriginal mythical creature who would posses people. Surprise surprise, the way you got rid of it was by beheading it.

 

How do I know he wasn't in the right state of mind? Do regular people talk to god? And again, for the part where you said he could have faked it, he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic by professional psychologists.

 

4.) Let's even say for argument's sake that god did tell him to decapitate the man. Does that make it right? No, it makes god wrong.

 

Never said it does. It does show that he wasn't in a right state of mind though

I don't think I have the will to debate with someone who believes that killing someone because you're crazy and god told you to is okay, but having an outside dog is terrible. Your whole code of morality is completely backwards so arguing without some sort of grounds to work off of would be futile. But then again, it does sound interesting.

 

Lol, I don't think I should be arguing with someone who has no grasp of the law. My "moral code" is fine. Please, point out to me where I said it is OK to kill someone. All I've said is that the person should not be treated like a regular murderer if they were not in a right state of mind/mentally "disturbed" so to speak.

 

Also, not to go off topic, but keeping dogs outside is stupid. Dogs have been bred for centuries to be companion animals, not wild animals.

 

He was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity and got sent to an mental institution, by the way.

 

It's not really about the jail and mental institution thing. Neither are very good ways of "fixing" people. As long as they're away from the rest of society, I'm fine when it comes to that. What does bother me is the fact that people believe he was not responsible for what he did.

 

So you ascribe to the warehouse people mind set then?

 

I think you are getting too hung up on the responsiblity thing. He DID kill the guy, and he is guilty of that. But he was real messed up at the time, and shouldn't be responsible for that because he wasn't in a regular, rational state of mind. In fact, the first/only thing he said to police after he was arrested was "please kill me".

By the way, I just read the story. Apparently he was butchering the body and taunting police with the decapitated head. I thought his incentive was just to kill the man because god wanted him dead - not to have fun with it. Sounds to me like he just gets kicks off of horrifying people.

Someone who decapitates someone and then tries to eat parts of the body is not someone I would call mentally stable. Which also raises the question, if he were faking it or whatever you seem to be suggesting, why would he kill someone on a bus in full public view instead of abducting some random person no one will notice is gone?