5 ms·

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 t

by 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.
  - dmix 9y ago
    If this is a predictable process that will result in what is essentially equivalent to a 'wrongful conviction' then as far as I'm concerned it's worth it to revise the process. Whether it's a hundred or a thousand I don't see the rationale being any different here. This system seems entirely intentional to me (for very understandable human reasons but ultimately wrong reasons), it's not just an unfortunate side-effect. I know public services and human effort is a matter of finite resources and prioritization, but there are plenty of human hours involved in each of these cases, from judges to doctors to the victims of the crime, it is not a lot to ask for them to stop bypassing the system and put them through a formal process within the context of their crime.

by chc 9y ago

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.
- dmix 9y ago
  If this is a predictable process that will result in what is essentially equivalent to a 'wrongful conviction' then as far as I'm concerned it's worth it to revise the process. Whether it's a hundred or a thousand I don't see the rationale being any different here. This system seems entirely intentional to me (for very understandable human reasons but ultimately wrong reasons), it's not just an unfortunate side-effect. I know public services and human effort is a matter of finite resources and prioritization, but there are plenty of human hours involved in each of these cases, from judges to doctors to the victims of the crime, it is not a lot to ask for them to stop bypassing the system and put them through a formal process within the context of their crime.