Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
Mentally fit for trial?
I have been thinking about this and cannot get my mind around it. I just read an article about a Lighuanian priest who was set a fire by a man during mass. The article went on to say that if the man is mentally fit for trial, they will prosecute?
What do you do with a dog who mauls a child to death? Call me heartless, but is being crazy an excuse? Is the victim some how less damaged by a crazy person? If a persons wires are all scrible scrabled, how will time fix it?
What do you think?
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
American law recognizes 'diminished capacity' where a person may not be cognizant of what they're doing, the consequences or effects of his actions, or whether his actions are right or wrong. Human being somewhat sacred at one time, we have decided to defer prosecution in favor of some other form of recuperative confinement. This is in recognition of the possibility that people who are a danger to themselves and/or others who are judged not responsible as a result of mental defect, can be removed from the public for protection of all concerned.
Pesonally, I am of the oipinion that when someone is TOO mentally damaged, we need to excise that person from among us, allowing the definition of 'excise' to be determined by others.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
I say if they are a danger to themselves, put them in a room full of rope and razor blades. I understand the reasoning, I just question the concern. And add to that, who defines mentally fit? Is a peodophile mentally fit? Is a rapist mentally fit? Is a cold blooded murder mentally fit? All of those acts are not of the normal psyche, so are they mentally fit?
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
I believe you can still find that brand of justice in many places such as Iraq or Saudi Arabia.They are going to let a victim pour acid in a guys eyes over their, and they still stone women to death for adultry.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
You can't blame judges, liberal or not. It's the legislatures which establish the rules. It's possible to be adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, sent to a mental treatment facility and be judged sane a year or two later and released. That's wrong.
In my opinion, someone who deliberately kills another person does not know the differerence between right and wrong and should not be released to society...ever.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
American law recognizes 'diminished capacity' where a person may not be cognizant of what they're doing, the consequences or effects of his actions, or whether his actions are right or wrong. Human being somewhat sacred at one time, we have decided to defer prosecution in favor of some other form of recuperative confinement. This is in recognition of the possibility that people who are a danger to themselves and/or others who are judged not responsible as a result of mental defect, can be removed from the public for protection of all concerned.
Pesonally, I am of the oipinion that when someone is TOO mentally damaged, we need to excise that person from among us, allowing the definition of 'excise' to be determined by others.
An excellent answer! Thank you for posting.
__________________ www.Kaydoo.com
Your Visual Marketplace
Crafters, Artists, Fundraisers,
Kaydoo is your place to be seen.
You can't blame judges, liberal or not. It's the legislatures which establish the rules. It's possible to be adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, sent to a mental treatment facility and be judged sane a year or two later and released. That's wrong.
Is the law the same everywhere?
Some states have abolished the use of an insanity defense, an action upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. Some have amended their laws to include standards of "diminished capacity" or "guilty but mentally ill," but most have roots in the M'Naghten rule. Maryland's statute, the one Aron will employ, defines the plea as "guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of insanity." Are insanity defenses often successful?
No, despite public perceptions to the contrary. One eight-state study of criminal cases in the early 1990s concluded that less than one percent of defendants pleaded insanity and, of them, only a quarter won aquittals. "In the real world, it just doesn't happen," said Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, who as lieutenant governor in 1983 chaired a task force that helped tighten that state's insanity defense.
Do people acquitted under an insanity defense walk free?
Rarely. In almost all cases, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity prompts a judge to commit defendants to treatment centers until mental health officials determine they do not pose a danger to anyone. For some, that could be akin to a life sentence. M'Naghten, for instance, died after 20 years in a mental asylum.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
I believe you can still find that brand of justice in many places such as Iraq or Saudi Arabia.They are going to let a victim pour acid in a guys eyes over their, and they still stone women to death for adultry.
How do you equate this as an "An eye for and eye?"
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Mentally fit for trial?
