22 ms·

What happens after a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity?

80 points by mcone 9y ago

dmix 9y ago
> In most states, like New York, there is no limit to the duration of that commitment. Couldn't the supreme court rule this type of punishment as "cruel and unusual punishment"? Technically there is a policy of reviewing "every 2 years" in perpetuity, so it's not like they don't have a formal punishment. They mention a Supreme Court ruling regarding "due process" but not the 8th amendment. So it's basically as if this is sidestepping the constitution by pretending they aren't being punished? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
- bitwize 9y ago
  "But Mr. Anderson, how can your punishment be cruel and unusual... if you are not actually... being... punished?" The Supreme Court has ruled that lifetime sex offender registration, despite few demonstrable positive effects on sex offender rehabilitation or sex offense prevention and despite their only apparent goal being the unpersoning of people who commit certain offenses, does not transgress the Eight Amendment because the sex offender registries are a "public safety" measure, not an actual punishment. Doubtless they will do the same for something like this.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Ah, "public safety" measure. The naming & shaming is a byproduct or unforeseen consequence. The military calls such "collateral damage". What is the purpose of such database? It falls or stands on recidivism. If there is a way (e.g. medical cocktail) where the chance of recidivism is close enough to 0 just like the average civilian there's no practical need for any "special" register. This stands on the premise that the sex offender actively uses their medical cocktail as prescribed.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  The State has to protect its legitimacy to authority by never being wrong. It has many of its own safeguards to prevent ever being wrong. This is what you will continually see, and only a separate state, such as the Federal Government existing in parallel jurisdiction, is able to step in, which it doesn't do mostly for historical reasons.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  Do you consider it much different from the practice of denying parole when convicts continue to profess innocence instead of professing contriteness? If someone is really innocent, they are in the catch 22 of staying in prison for life because parole boards deny release but if they just lie and pretend to feel contrite they get out on parole right away after serving time. There was a case on NPR recently but there's a name for the phenomena - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma plus documentaries about similar cases - West Memphis Three, etc.
  - dmix 9y ago
    While I see that as a valid issue in it's own right... I don't see the connection here, sorry. Cruel and unusual punishment applies regardless of actual or claimed innocence, they could have totally done the crime and the punishment could still be unconstitutional. This is not a catch-22 side effect of inflexible poorly written law, but an intentional side-stepping of built-in protections against abuse of power.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    The thing about that is, in practical terms, the prisoners are making a terrible choice by sticking to their guns. They options are: 1) Keep professing innocence and stay in prison. 2) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out. 3) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out... and then work to retroactively exonerate yourself, when you're on the outside and actually have some chance of doing so without a lucky guardian angel taking interest in your case while you're in prison. There are no legal ramifications to "admitting" guilt and expressing remorse. You already have the conviction on your record, so in the eyes of the law, you committed the crime, end of story. I'm sympathetic to the parole board here, to be honest (which feels really weird to say). While they of course know abstractly that some innocent people are in jail and shouldn't be, they don't have much to go on when it comes to the prisoner in front of them. They have the prisoner's conviction record, without enough context to make a guilty/not-guilty call of their own (and do we even want them making a call along those lines?), and their purpose is to determine if the potential parolee is likely to re-offend. They have to assume the conviction record is correct, or it's basically impossible for them to do their job. And if it is correct, and the prisoner professes innocence, they can't responsibly say that releasing them is a good idea. Beyond that, if the prisoner is indeed innocent, there is a process for dealing with that outside the parole process. It's not perfect, and it's difficult for a prisoner to gain access, and I'm sure could stand to see some large improvements, but the parole process just isn't the place to get your sentence reduced because you actually are innocent.
- nradov 9y ago
  Involuntary commitment is handled through the civil court system and isn't technically considered a "punishment" under criminal law.
  - jrochkind1 9y ago
    Changing the words (or even set of laws) you use to apply to something doesn't exempt it from constitutional scrutiny. But I wouldn't want to bet on the supreme court deciding anything about this is unconstitutional, they haven't been inclined to in similar situations when it has come before them.
- chc 9y ago
  Nobody's "pretending" they aren't being punished — they were found not guilty, so there legally isn't even anything to punish them for. Instead, they're being treated for self-professed insanity. I think that's why it's framed as a due process question.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Regardless most of them did in fact do a serious crime and many openly admit it or there is plenty of evidence. The fact the prosecution is accepting a non-guilty plea in obviously winnable criminal trials is merely part of the "pretending" involved in a scheme to jail people indefinitely and push them into civil trials without constitutional protection. This is merely legal theatrics and these people are being punished. If these facilities were at least decent places to stay I wouldn't care as much. But they are held essentially in a prison with nurses, indefinitely, regardless of their original offence. Probably with more restrictions than prison. The guy couldn't even get an extra sugar in his tea without a big ordeal... This is something that needs to be handled through a formal process. Why not give them a real sentence in a medical facility, then when it's done if they are still not 'ready to go back into the public' due to public safety, via a panel of doctors, then have another process with it's own means and standards which have to be passed (within the scope of criminal law) with a bar high enough appropriate to the punishment. This is not without significant costs to the public either... those doctors, lawyers, courts, and law enforcement involved are extremely expensive and there are more than enough better uses for these resources than getting some emotional gratification of locking people away for little societal ROI.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      > The fact the prosecution is accepting a non-guilty plea in obviously winnable criminal trials is merely part of the "pretending" involved in a scheme to jail people indefinitely and push them into civil trials without constitutional protection. I was thinking about this, but the numbers don't support this interpretation. It seems like involuntary commitment post-NGRI would be a place rife for abuse, and yet such a tiny tiny tiny fraction of criminal cases go that way. You'd think the number would be much higher if prosecutors wanted to use NGRI for nefarious purposes.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Sorry but this is common sense. "I killed him but I was insane and I want to get out," nope, sorry but I don't think you should my neighbor unless someone makes sure that you are sane.
joecool1029 9y ago
In Canada they get treatment and are set free without restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean#Aftermat...
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Isn't that the case everywhere? But the catch is that you aren't set free until you are considered cured and/or safe to set free. For many, this means never.
  - snuxoll 9y ago
    Unfortunate reality is some mental disease can't be effectively treated, if you can't clear the barrier of "not a danger to self or others" then it's best for society to keep a patient isolated from it. Still, our history with mental health facilities shows that we have a less than stellar reputation of actually treating individuals - wouldn't surprise me if to this day there are still people locked up in these places that SHOULD be capable of release.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Right. It's even very commonly the case that disorders are not treatable. Which is why many that are found insane and dangerous are never released from care. I think a problem in the US (at least by appearance) is that the regular prison system for those found same offers too little rehabilitation and care fit minor psychological disorders such as hyperactivity disorders etc. Locking half as many people up for half as long as they are currently would quadruple resources available to rehabilitate those who need it.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Slightly off-topic, but > After the incident, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals attempted to run an ad in the Portage Daily Graphic comparing the killing of McLean to the consumption of animals WTF peta?
mabbo 9y ago
There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Basically, the man went into an absolute psychotic state on the travelling bus and cut the head off a stranger while everyone else on the bus ran for their lives. A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication, but people are very upset that he'd ever be free at all. In interviews, he's a very interesting person. "Regret" and "shame" aren't strong enough words. It's a hard debate- if he was not guilty due to a medical condition, then he was not found guilty and shouldn't be in prison, certainly. But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? It's the extreme end of the situation, to be certain, but extremes are a great place to examine any system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  Where is the difference between 'I choose to do it' and 'I couldn't choose not to do it'? A lot of perceived differences between these I've seen others mention is based on free will, which is something science isn't sure even exists.
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    If you're responding to the parent's situation where someone causes violence due to mental issues leading to a loss of control, the latter may be treatable and curable, after which the threat is gone if the person, absent the mental issues that caused the loss of control, doesn't want to harm people. The former was a choice that may be made again, so is therefore always a threat even if they truly repent and are sorry for their choice.
    - derekp7 9y ago
      So basically the same thing if someone had a stroke violent seizure while at a restaurant, while cutting a steak, and accidentally stabbed the waiter in the heart killing him. In that case, a brain defect caused the person to kill the victim, yet in no way should he be held criminally responsible.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
You've got to get the ordinary man into the state in which he says 'Sadism' automatically when he hears the word Punishment." And then one would have carte blanche. Mark did not immediately follow this. But the Fairy pointed out that what had hampered every English police force up to date was precisely the idea of deserved punishment. For desert was always finite: you could do so much to the criminal and no more. Remedial treatment, on the other hand, need have no fixed limit; it could go on till it had effected a cure, and those who were carrying it out would decide when that was. And if cure were humane and desirable, how much more prevention? Soon anyone who had ever been in the hands of the police at all would come under the control of the N.I.C.E.; in the end, every citizen. - C.S. Lewis - That Hideous Strength
- pnathan 9y ago
  Lewis did put his finger on a nasty little quality of modern man with that quote. I don't know that the Hideous Strength is a good book - it's positively regressive in quite too many ways - but that quote there could stand to be put in plaques in many offices as a caution.
nodesocket 9y ago
Just finished Manhunt: Unabomber[1] on Netflix. According to the show, it was Ted Kaczynski's entire defense to rebuttal his charges saying forensic linguistics and the FBI agent who "cracked" the case had no precedent. The agent was in fact a traffic cop before becoming an FBI agent and had little formal linguistics training. Instead Ted's defense behind his back went with insanity and tried to get him to plead to "save his life". Ted chose to plead guilty instead of insanity fearing his ideology and manifesto would be ignored if he pleased insanity. [1] https://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/manhunt-unabomber/ https://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/manhunt-unabomber/
- jimmies 9y ago
  I have read his manifesto. That was actually not a bad read at all. I think some of the circuits in his brain was damaged and not functioning right, but certainly not all of it. Most of the points he brought up is logical and still applies till today.
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    Makes you wonder if his time in the MKULTRA program had anything to do with his decision to be violent.
- justinator 9y ago
  I thought it was his Brother who noticed the handwriting from different letters (sent to him, sent to others) was basically the same.
  - messick 9y ago
    The brother turning him in is how the FBI found Ted. The linguistics stuff was the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
zf00002 9y ago
Louis Theroux did a 2 part documentary where he visited an Ohio psychiatric hospital that housed people who were found not guilty by reason of insanity. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4546868/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4546868/
- KGIII 9y ago
  Theroux's got a lot of stuff on YouTube. It may be copyright infringement, I don't know. I do know that it sits there, unchallenged, for years. He has lots of good documentaries up. I highly recommend all of them.
KGIII 9y ago
Tom, name made up, is a friend of mine. Sort of... I knew Tom for only a short while but I still write him letters and send him a few dollars every couple of weeks. When Tom was just 18, he had finished school and was headed off to a large university on a sports scholarship. Not having any money, and coming from a poor family, he looked forward to this. It was going to be his big break. But, Tom needed a wardrobe fit for a nice university. So, Tom went to the mall and proceeded to steal some clothing. Security tried to stop Tom so he pushed the security guard and ran away. Tom, of course, went to jail. The DA offered Tom a 30 day sentence in a plea agreement and Tom, deciding his life was over, took a razor blade and cut his own throat. Tom's 30 day sentence resulted in 10 years in a State mental hospital. Curiously, when he was released from the mental hospital, they still made him serve his 30 days. Tom, now having nothing and a giant scar where normal skin once was, tried to meander through life as best as he could. This is where I met Tom. Tom loved drinking and doing drugs. His childhood years of experimentation had been lost to the system and Tom was making up for that. Tom and I had good times. I eventually moved on and no longer spent time with Tom. I'm not sure who was a worse influence on who, but that's immaterial and a story for another time. One day, Tom had had enough. He just wasn't going to function and decided to end it all. He went down to the facility where he normally met his providers and took someone hostage. This, of course, resulted in the police being called. Tom, for all his brilliance, was having none of it. The police came through the door and Tom attacked the first one through the door with his knife. I'd like to say he put up a good fight, that he gave a good showing, and that he fought long and hard. No, he did no such thing. Cops being cops, Tom hadn't made it more than a couple of steps before they shot him. Tom survived and is now back in that same State hospital. His letters tell me that he is even back in the same room. He expects to remain there for the rest of his life and likes to think he was sane, but just desperate, when the shoplifting occurred. He strongly suspects the system has made him even less sane and even more unstable. He seems to be okay with spending his life there. All for some clothing to fit in at university...
- micheljones 9y ago
  Amerika, Amerika, the beautiful.
  - 9y ago
thomastjeffery 9y ago
> people who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or who have been arrested but found incompetent to stand trial — are involuntarily confined to psychiatric hospitals. Here, "psychiatric hospital" literally means "prison with carpets". There are locked doors instead of bars, and caretakers instead of guards, but it's a prison all the same. My brother had a mental breakdown (not violent or criminal, but threatening enough to himself for police to be involved), and ended up in the state "hospital" for quite a while. I almost wish it was a prison instead, because at least prison is honest about what it is. These "hospitals" may be necessary for some, but as soon as you walk inside, you take a deep dive into the uncanny valley, and you yourself begin to question your own sanity. I won't even try to imagine what it would be like to be thrown inside with no trial, and told that you can't leave unless you prove to your accusers that you are adequately "normal" The worst thing about the situation is that my brother didn't believe or understand he was ill, and the state gave him every reason to be angry, and reject the situation, rather than come to terms with it. Thankfully now, he is in an assisted living facility, is allowed to leave, and can feel more like a human being, but while he is very normal, functional, etc. he can't just go find work and go live his life. There doesn't seem to be an end game, and that alone is its own prison.
- limeblack 9y ago
  My frustration with "mental health" is that many things like bipolar, schizophrenia and depression(even ADHD sometimes) are often viewed as incurable while also having no true litmus test. This talks about some of the issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuhJ-GkRRQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuhJ-GkRRQc Not to mention the fact homosexuality used to be a mental illness. Prisoners are definitely no better considering then you have a criminal record for a while typically.
- cm2012 9y ago
  Agreed. Years ago, my wife made a suicide attempt that I stopped. We agreed together to go to the psych hospital after for evaluation. It was a mistake. They forcibly kept her for 3 days. She has a huge anxiety about being trapped places since she was neglected and abandoned as a kid. It didn't prevent her from hurting herself any more than she would have, and made things much worse afterwords because it was traumatic. You have absolutely no control or agency once you're inside. I would never bring her back under any circumstances.
throwawaydbd 9y ago
This happened to a family member of mine and it's honestly the best possible outcome for people as out of touch with reality as he is. This may not be the best system for some that get caught in it, but it does serve a purpose in dealing with the criminally insane. He was too dangerous and unpredictable to live with us anymore. The rest of the family kept weapons under our beds of various kinds, hoping to God we would never need to use them. A group home was a joke, he would have assaulted someone within a week. He would escape and start driving on the wrong side of the road on purpose for "reasons". We hid the keys, but he was above normal intelligence despite his insanity and would always find them. He would attack his family and the neighbors when he thought we were after him. His prospects were jail and homelessness, we were so happy when he ended up in a high security mental facility, ecstatic. Now he's in a place that's better than jail or being homeless where people care about him at least a slight amount and there's relative safety. He's not surrounded by criminals, behind bars, or dying on the street. Yeah, it's not a great place to be, but the best outcome an extremely schizophrenic large male can hope for. He doesn't deserve jail because he has no bearing on what is allowed in society and attacks people out of fear. When he's calm it can seem like you're talking to a normal person for a few minutes. Then he goes off the rails... But still there's a really intelligent shard of sanity in there somewhere.

80 points by mcone 9y ago

dmix 9y ago

> In most states, like New York, there is no limit to the duration of that commitment. Couldn't the supreme court rule this type of punishment as "cruel and unusual punishment"? Technically there is a policy of reviewing "every 2 years" in perpetuity, so it's not like they don't have a formal punishment. They mention a Supreme Court ruling regarding "due process" but not the 8th amendment. So it's basically as if this is sidestepping the constitution by pretending they aren't being punished? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...

bitwize 9y ago
"But Mr. Anderson, how can your punishment be cruel and unusual... if you are not actually... being... punished?" The Supreme Court has ruled that lifetime sex offender registration, despite few demonstrable positive effects on sex offender rehabilitation or sex offense prevention and despite their only apparent goal being the unpersoning of people who commit certain offenses, does not transgress the Eight Amendment because the sex offender registries are a "public safety" measure, not an actual punishment. Doubtless they will do the same for something like this.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  Ah, "public safety" measure. The naming & shaming is a byproduct or unforeseen consequence. The military calls such "collateral damage". What is the purpose of such database? It falls or stands on recidivism. If there is a way (e.g. medical cocktail) where the chance of recidivism is close enough to 0 just like the average civilian there's no practical need for any "special" register. This stands on the premise that the sex offender actively uses their medical cocktail as prescribed.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
The State has to protect its legitimacy to authority by never being wrong. It has many of its own safeguards to prevent ever being wrong. This is what you will continually see, and only a separate state, such as the Federal Government existing in parallel jurisdiction, is able to step in, which it doesn't do mostly for historical reasons.
stevenwoo 9y ago
Do you consider it much different from the practice of denying parole when convicts continue to profess innocence instead of professing contriteness? If someone is really innocent, they are in the catch 22 of staying in prison for life because parole boards deny release but if they just lie and pretend to feel contrite they get out on parole right away after serving time. There was a case on NPR recently but there's a name for the phenomena - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma plus documentaries about similar cases - West Memphis Three, etc.
- dmix 9y ago
  While I see that as a valid issue in it's own right... I don't see the connection here, sorry. Cruel and unusual punishment applies regardless of actual or claimed innocence, they could have totally done the crime and the punishment could still be unconstitutional. This is not a catch-22 side effect of inflexible poorly written law, but an intentional side-stepping of built-in protections against abuse of power.
- kelnos 9y ago
  The thing about that is, in practical terms, the prisoners are making a terrible choice by sticking to their guns. They options are: 1) Keep professing innocence and stay in prison. 2) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out. 3) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out... and then work to retroactively exonerate yourself, when you're on the outside and actually have some chance of doing so without a lucky guardian angel taking interest in your case while you're in prison. There are no legal ramifications to "admitting" guilt and expressing remorse. You already have the conviction on your record, so in the eyes of the law, you committed the crime, end of story. I'm sympathetic to the parole board here, to be honest (which feels really weird to say). While they of course know abstractly that some innocent people are in jail and shouldn't be, they don't have much to go on when it comes to the prisoner in front of them. They have the prisoner's conviction record, without enough context to make a guilty/not-guilty call of their own (and do we even want them making a call along those lines?), and their purpose is to determine if the potential parolee is likely to re-offend. They have to assume the conviction record is correct, or it's basically impossible for them to do their job. And if it is correct, and the prisoner professes innocence, they can't responsibly say that releasing them is a good idea. Beyond that, if the prisoner is indeed innocent, there is a process for dealing with that outside the parole process. It's not perfect, and it's difficult for a prisoner to gain access, and I'm sure could stand to see some large improvements, but the parole process just isn't the place to get your sentence reduced because you actually are innocent.
nradov 9y ago
Involuntary commitment is handled through the civil court system and isn't technically considered a "punishment" under criminal law.
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  Changing the words (or even set of laws) you use to apply to something doesn't exempt it from constitutional scrutiny. But I wouldn't want to bet on the supreme court deciding anything about this is unconstitutional, they haven't been inclined to in similar situations when it has come before them.
chc 9y ago
Nobody's "pretending" they aren't being punished — they were found not guilty, so there legally isn't even anything to punish them for. Instead, they're being treated for self-professed insanity. I think that's why it's framed as a due process question.
- dmix 9y ago
  Regardless most of them did in fact do a serious crime and many openly admit it or there is plenty of evidence. The fact the prosecution is accepting a non-guilty plea in obviously winnable criminal trials is merely part of the "pretending" involved in a scheme to jail people indefinitely and push them into civil trials without constitutional protection. This is merely legal theatrics and these people are being punished. If these facilities were at least decent places to stay I wouldn't care as much. But they are held essentially in a prison with nurses, indefinitely, regardless of their original offence. Probably with more restrictions than prison. The guy couldn't even get an extra sugar in his tea without a big ordeal... This is something that needs to be handled through a formal process. Why not give them a real sentence in a medical facility, then when it's done if they are still not 'ready to go back into the public' due to public safety, via a panel of doctors, then have another process with it's own means and standards which have to be passed (within the scope of criminal law) with a bar high enough appropriate to the punishment. This is not without significant costs to the public either... those doctors, lawyers, courts, and law enforcement involved are extremely expensive and there are more than enough better uses for these resources than getting some emotional gratification of locking people away for little societal ROI.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > The fact the prosecution is accepting a non-guilty plea in obviously winnable criminal trials is merely part of the "pretending" involved in a scheme to jail people indefinitely and push them into civil trials without constitutional protection. I was thinking about this, but the numbers don't support this interpretation. It seems like involuntary commitment post-NGRI would be a place rife for abuse, and yet such a tiny tiny tiny fraction of criminal cases go that way. You'd think the number would be much higher if prosecutors wanted to use NGRI for nefarious purposes.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

Sorry but this is common sense. "I killed him but I was insane and I want to get out," nope, sorry but I don't think you should my neighbor unless someone makes sure that you are sane.

joecool1029 9y ago

In Canada they get treatment and are set free without restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean#Aftermat...

alkonaut 9y ago
Isn't that the case everywhere? But the catch is that you aren't set free until you are considered cured and/or safe to set free. For many, this means never.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  Unfortunate reality is some mental disease can't be effectively treated, if you can't clear the barrier of "not a danger to self or others" then it's best for society to keep a patient isolated from it. Still, our history with mental health facilities shows that we have a less than stellar reputation of actually treating individuals - wouldn't surprise me if to this day there are still people locked up in these places that SHOULD be capable of release.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Right. It's even very commonly the case that disorders are not treatable. Which is why many that are found insane and dangerous are never released from care. I think a problem in the US (at least by appearance) is that the regular prison system for those found same offers too little rehabilitation and care fit minor psychological disorders such as hyperactivity disorders etc. Locking half as many people up for half as long as they are currently would quadruple resources available to rehabilitate those who need it.
craftyguy 9y ago
Slightly off-topic, but > After the incident, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals attempted to run an ad in the Portage Daily Graphic comparing the killing of McLean to the consumption of animals WTF peta?

mabbo 9y ago

There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Basically, the man went into an absolute psychotic state on the travelling bus and cut the head off a stranger while everyone else on the bus ran for their lives. A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication, but people are very upset that he'd ever be free at all. In interviews, he's a very interesting person. "Regret" and "shame" aren't strong enough words. It's a hard debate- if he was not guilty due to a medical condition, then he was not found guilty and shouldn't be in prison, certainly. But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? It's the extreme end of the situation, to be certain, but extremes are a great place to examine any system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean

BearGoesChirp 9y ago
Where is the difference between 'I choose to do it' and 'I couldn't choose not to do it'? A lot of perceived differences between these I've seen others mention is based on free will, which is something science isn't sure even exists.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  If you're responding to the parent's situation where someone causes violence due to mental issues leading to a loss of control, the latter may be treatable and curable, after which the threat is gone if the person, absent the mental issues that caused the loss of control, doesn't want to harm people. The former was a choice that may be made again, so is therefore always a threat even if they truly repent and are sorry for their choice.
  - derekp7 9y ago
    So basically the same thing if someone had a stroke violent seizure while at a restaurant, while cutting a steak, and accidentally stabbed the waiter in the heart killing him. In that case, a brain defect caused the person to kill the victim, yet in no way should he be held criminally responsible.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

You've got to get the ordinary man into the state in which he says 'Sadism' automatically when he hears the word Punishment." And then one would have carte blanche. Mark did not immediately follow this. But the Fairy pointed out that what had hampered every English police force up to date was precisely the idea of deserved punishment. For desert was always finite: you could do so much to the criminal and no more. Remedial treatment, on the other hand, need have no fixed limit; it could go on till it had effected a cure, and those who were carrying it out would decide when that was. And if cure were humane and desirable, how much more prevention? Soon anyone who had ever been in the hands of the police at all would come under the control of the N.I.C.E.; in the end, every citizen. - C.S. Lewis - That Hideous Strength

pnathan 9y ago
Lewis did put his finger on a nasty little quality of modern man with that quote. I don't know that the Hideous Strength is a good book - it's positively regressive in quite too many ways - but that quote there could stand to be put in plaques in many offices as a caution.

nodesocket 9y ago

Just finished Manhunt: Unabomber[1] on Netflix. According to the show, it was Ted Kaczynski's entire defense to rebuttal his charges saying forensic linguistics and the FBI agent who "cracked" the case had no precedent. The agent was in fact a traffic cop before becoming an FBI agent and had little formal linguistics training. Instead Ted's defense behind his back went with insanity and tried to get him to plead to "save his life". Ted chose to plead guilty instead of insanity fearing his ideology and manifesto would be ignored if he pleased insanity. [1] https://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/manhunt-unabomber/ https://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/manhunt-unabomber/

jimmies 9y ago
I have read his manifesto. That was actually not a bad read at all. I think some of the circuits in his brain was damaged and not functioning right, but certainly not all of it. Most of the points he brought up is logical and still applies till today.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  Makes you wonder if his time in the MKULTRA program had anything to do with his decision to be violent.
justinator 9y ago
I thought it was his Brother who noticed the handwriting from different letters (sent to him, sent to others) was basically the same.
- messick 9y ago
  The brother turning him in is how the FBI found Ted. The linguistics stuff was the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

zf00002 9y ago

Louis Theroux did a 2 part documentary where he visited an Ohio psychiatric hospital that housed people who were found not guilty by reason of insanity. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4546868/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4546868/

KGIII 9y ago
Theroux's got a lot of stuff on YouTube. It may be copyright infringement, I don't know. I do know that it sits there, unchallenged, for years. He has lots of good documentaries up. I highly recommend all of them.

KGIII 9y ago

Tom, name made up, is a friend of mine. Sort of... I knew Tom for only a short while but I still write him letters and send him a few dollars every couple of weeks. When Tom was just 18, he had finished school and was headed off to a large university on a sports scholarship. Not having any money, and coming from a poor family, he looked forward to this. It was going to be his big break. But, Tom needed a wardrobe fit for a nice university. So, Tom went to the mall and proceeded to steal some clothing. Security tried to stop Tom so he pushed the security guard and ran away. Tom, of course, went to jail. The DA offered Tom a 30 day sentence in a plea agreement and Tom, deciding his life was over, took a razor blade and cut his own throat. Tom's 30 day sentence resulted in 10 years in a State mental hospital. Curiously, when he was released from the mental hospital, they still made him serve his 30 days. Tom, now having nothing and a giant scar where normal skin once was, tried to meander through life as best as he could. This is where I met Tom. Tom loved drinking and doing drugs. His childhood years of experimentation had been lost to the system and Tom was making up for that. Tom and I had good times. I eventually moved on and no longer spent time with Tom. I'm not sure who was a worse influence on who, but that's immaterial and a story for another time. One day, Tom had had enough. He just wasn't going to function and decided to end it all. He went down to the facility where he normally met his providers and took someone hostage. This, of course, resulted in the police being called. Tom, for all his brilliance, was having none of it. The police came through the door and Tom attacked the first one through the door with his knife. I'd like to say he put up a good fight, that he gave a good showing, and that he fought long and hard. No, he did no such thing. Cops being cops, Tom hadn't made it more than a couple of steps before they shot him. Tom survived and is now back in that same State hospital. His letters tell me that he is even back in the same room. He expects to remain there for the rest of his life and likes to think he was sane, but just desperate, when the shoplifting occurred. He strongly suspects the system has made him even less sane and even more unstable. He seems to be okay with spending his life there. All for some clothing to fit in at university...

micheljones 9y ago
Amerika, Amerika, the beautiful.
- 9y ago

thomastjeffery 9y ago

> people who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or who have been arrested but found incompetent to stand trial — are involuntarily confined to psychiatric hospitals. Here, "psychiatric hospital" literally means "prison with carpets". There are locked doors instead of bars, and caretakers instead of guards, but it's a prison all the same. My brother had a mental breakdown (not violent or criminal, but threatening enough to himself for police to be involved), and ended up in the state "hospital" for quite a while. I almost wish it was a prison instead, because at least prison is honest about what it is. These "hospitals" may be necessary for some, but as soon as you walk inside, you take a deep dive into the uncanny valley, and you yourself begin to question your own sanity. I won't even try to imagine what it would be like to be thrown inside with no trial, and told that you can't leave unless you prove to your accusers that you are adequately "normal" The worst thing about the situation is that my brother didn't believe or understand he was ill, and the state gave him every reason to be angry, and reject the situation, rather than come to terms with it. Thankfully now, he is in an assisted living facility, is allowed to leave, and can feel more like a human being, but while he is very normal, functional, etc. he can't just go find work and go live his life. There doesn't seem to be an end game, and that alone is its own prison.

limeblack 9y ago
My frustration with "mental health" is that many things like bipolar, schizophrenia and depression(even ADHD sometimes) are often viewed as incurable while also having no true litmus test. This talks about some of the issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuhJ-GkRRQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuhJ-GkRRQc Not to mention the fact homosexuality used to be a mental illness. Prisoners are definitely no better considering then you have a criminal record for a while typically.
cm2012 9y ago
Agreed. Years ago, my wife made a suicide attempt that I stopped. We agreed together to go to the psych hospital after for evaluation. It was a mistake. They forcibly kept her for 3 days. She has a huge anxiety about being trapped places since she was neglected and abandoned as a kid. It didn't prevent her from hurting herself any more than she would have, and made things much worse afterwords because it was traumatic. You have absolutely no control or agency once you're inside. I would never bring her back under any circumstances.

throwawaydbd 9y ago

This happened to a family member of mine and it's honestly the best possible outcome for people as out of touch with reality as he is. This may not be the best system for some that get caught in it, but it does serve a purpose in dealing with the criminally insane. He was too dangerous and unpredictable to live with us anymore. The rest of the family kept weapons under our beds of various kinds, hoping to God we would never need to use them. A group home was a joke, he would have assaulted someone within a week. He would escape and start driving on the wrong side of the road on purpose for "reasons". We hid the keys, but he was above normal intelligence despite his insanity and would always find them. He would attack his family and the neighbors when he thought we were after him. His prospects were jail and homelessness, we were so happy when he ended up in a high security mental facility, ecstatic. Now he's in a place that's better than jail or being homeless where people care about him at least a slight amount and there's relative safety. He's not surrounded by criminals, behind bars, or dying on the street. Yeah, it's not a great place to be, but the best outcome an extremely schizophrenic large male can hope for. He doesn't deserve jail because he has no bearing on what is allowed in society and attacks people out of fear. When he's calm it can seem like you're talking to a normal person for a few minutes. Then he goes off the rails... But still there's a really intelligent shard of sanity in there somewhere.