Verdict reached in theatre shootings case in Colorado
16 Jul 2015, 10:19 pm
blauSamstag,
It's a rather long video, but thank you for cleaning up your usage. "Severe mental illness" gets across your point much more clearly than does the layperson's definition of insanity, and also allows you to say clearly from your point of view how the defendant's state at the time of the shooting falls short of the legal definition of insanity.
EDIT: Changed "useless" to intended "usage."
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
17 Jul 2015, 7:45 am
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag,
It's a rather long video, but thank you for cleaning up your usage. "Severe mental illness" gets across your point much more clearly than does the layperson's definition of insanity, and also allows you to say clearly from your point of view how the defendant's state at the time of the shooting falls short of the legal definition of insanity.
EDIT: Changed "useless" to intended "usage."
It's a rather long video, but thank you for cleaning up your usage. "Severe mental illness" gets across your point much more clearly than does the layperson's definition of insanity, and also allows you to say clearly from your point of view how the defendant's state at the time of the shooting falls short of the legal definition of insanity.
EDIT: Changed "useless" to intended "usage."
huh, that widget doesn't start playback at the marked spot. which fwiw was 5:52:00ish.
18 Jul 2015, 5:15 am
beneficii wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
He's obviously insane but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous and/or didn't know what he was doing.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
And it's not like we have a system for the criminally insane anyway. Other than the regular penal system i mean.
According to the jury, he was NOT insane at the time he shot up the movie theatre.
"Legally insane", and "clinically insane", are not the same thing. Not that the two categories are mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same.
To be legally insane you have to be mentally impaired in a way that you don't know right from wrong. If you're psychotic, but know that what you're doing is wrong then you're not "legally insane".
Or that's the theory.
To do what he did he would pretty much have to be "clinically insane". But he still might have known that what he was doing was wrong. So he would not necessarily be "legally insane".
Why in this thread, about a criminal case in which an insanity plea was made, would we use any definition of insanity other than the legal definition? Wouldn't that put us in danger of making the fallacy of equivocation?
Why do you ask a dumb irrelevant question like this?
That's a serious question.
Why did you post this when you know the answer is:
That there is a difference between different kinds of insane, and maybe you didn't know that there was difference.
I was simply making the point that "insane" people aren't necessarily "legally insane", and vice versa to clarify the issue.
Folks who are sane can use the "temporary insanity" defense (crimes of passion-finding your spouse cheating).
Holmes could have been "insane" without being "legally insane".
The term insanity is no longer used in a clinical context:
Quote:
That word, of course, is “insanity.” I am sure it would come as no surprise to most of you that, in 2004, insanity is considered a legal term. The Concise Medical Dictionary declares that insanity refers to, “A degree of mental illness such that the affected individual is not responsible for his actions or is not capable of entering into a legal contract. The term is a legal rather than a medical one.”11 Similar definitions can be found in other standard medical dictionaries as well as in dictionaries that are compiled for the general public. The more scholarly of these publications occasionally mention that the term once had a medical meaning, but quickly point out that such usage is obsolete. Legal dictionaries contain no such disclaimer. They embrace the word with little or no comment about its origins and often provide voluminous lists of cases and legislative pronouncements in which the meaning of insanity is made manifest.12–14
http://www.jaapl.org/content/33/2/252.f ... type=HWCIT
Nowadays, more specific terms are used in clinical practice. Insanity, in medicine, is an outdated and vague term.
So, pray tell, why would someone in this kind of conversation, about a criminal case in which the defendant made a plea of insanity, want to use the word insanity in any defintion other than the legal one, instead of more specific and up-to-date terms like severe mental illness, schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar diorder, or mania?
IMO, there is no good reason, and the only thing that can come out of it is confusion as to what definition of insanity you are using at a particular point in a particular post. It does no good to have 2 definitions of the same word being used interchangeably in a discussion; it can only confuse things. It can also lead to the fallacy of equivocation.
We all know insanity is used colloquially. Actual psychologists use the term "psychotic" to mean more or less what laypersons mean by "insane".
But in the law "insanity" means something slightly different. You can be temporarily "insane" (drunk, or in a jealous rage) for reasons that have nothing to do with psychosis.
In this thread you talk about whether or not Holmes is "insane", but never touch upon whether or not he is "insane" in a way that would impair his ability to know right from wrong.
My point is that if you're going to talk about the subject then...TALK about it. Address the issue of whether he knew right from wrong when he did it.
18 Jul 2015, 12:08 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
We all know insanity is used colloquially. Actual psychologists use the term "psychotic" to mean more or less what laypersons mean by "insane".
But in the law "insanity" means something slightly different. You can be temporarily "insane" (drunk, or in a jealous rage) for reasons that have nothing to do with psychosis.
In this thread you talk about whether or not Holmes is "insane", but never touch upon whether or not he is "insane" in a way that would impair his ability to know right from wrong.
My point is that if you're going to talk about the subject then...TALK about it. Address the issue of whether he knew right from wrong when he did it.
But in the law "insanity" means something slightly different. You can be temporarily "insane" (drunk, or in a jealous rage) for reasons that have nothing to do with psychosis.
In this thread you talk about whether or not Holmes is "insane", but never touch upon whether or not he is "insane" in a way that would impair his ability to know right from wrong.
My point is that if you're going to talk about the subject then...TALK about it. Address the issue of whether he knew right from wrong when he did it.
First: Mania also covers what was historically considered insanity (and it's not always accompanied by psychosis)--think Kraeplin's (out-dated) term manic-depressive insanity. Second: I did touch upon whether Holmes was insane, when I said that the jury rejected the insanity defense. Third: I think the colloquial definition of insanity should NOT be used in conversations like this, because it can only confuse things and lead to the fallacy of equivocation: Not a good thing!
As for me, I generally try to avoid giving my opinion on guilt in individual criminal court cases, because 1.) I haven't studied the evidence like the jury has and 2.) I think it would be discourteous to all involved to give such an ill-informed opinion. Because of that, I will not say whether I believe Holmes to have been guilty or legally insane. Of course, I may speak on issues generally, such as about the insanity defense or the school-to-prison pipeline.
I think when people say stuff like, "Anyone who'd shoot up a place is insane to me, so we might as well get rid of the insanity defense" (which I've seen a lot here and there), they are making a grievous error, confusing their idea of insanity with the legal definition (as a person who'd shoot up a place is not always insane in the eyes of the law, something the jury in the Holmes case and other cases have agreed with). I am concerned with addressing such errors.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
18 Jul 2015, 12:25 pm
Call me a mean spirited conservative but I don't buy the insanity plea in cases like this. Even if they are kuku I'm still all for them spending the rest of their lives on death row or just incarcerated in general. You don't get to knock off that many people and enjoy the luxury of an insanity plea and whatever comparatively kid glove treatment that brings.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
18 Jul 2015, 12:31 pm
Punishment has no meaning when the perpetrator either did not comprehend what they were doing or did not know right from wrong. In such cases, the perperator needs help. Because of that, I support the insanity defense in general.
Again, whether Holmes was insane I will not give my opinion, but acknowledge that the jury rejected the insanity defense in his case.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
18 Jul 2015, 12:55 pm
I think this is important to keep in mind:
Quote:
Despite public fears, defendants do not abuse the availability of the insanity defense. In felony cases, the defense is invoked less than 1% of the time, and even when it is employed, it is only successful 25% of the time.[6] Further, in approximately 70% of the cases in which the defense has been successfully employed, the prosecution and defense have agreed on the appropriateness of the insanity plea before the trial.[6] That individual invocations of the defense are contested relatively infrequently suggests that it is no more likely for a defendant to be incorrectly found not guilty by reason of insanity than to be incorrectly found not guilty for any other reason. Finally, there is a high likelihood of court-mandated treatment following an insanity acquittal, often lasting a substantial length of time, which serves protect the public from defendants who may be dangerous and also to discourage people from pretending to be mentally ill in order to use the defense.[7] These realities all refute perceptions that the insanity defense creates a loophole in criminal liability.
http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/posi ... ty-defense
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
18 Jul 2015, 1:24 pm
beneficii wrote:
I think this is important to keep in mind:
http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/posi ... ty-defense
Quote:
Despite public fears, defendants do not abuse the availability of the insanity defense. In felony cases, the defense is invoked less than 1% of the time, and even when it is employed, it is only successful 25% of the time.[6] Further, in approximately 70% of the cases in which the defense has been successfully employed, the prosecution and defense have agreed on the appropriateness of the insanity plea before the trial.[6] That individual invocations of the defense are contested relatively infrequently suggests that it is no more likely for a defendant to be incorrectly found not guilty by reason of insanity than to be incorrectly found not guilty for any other reason. Finally, there is a high likelihood of court-mandated treatment following an insanity acquittal, often lasting a substantial length of time, which serves protect the public from defendants who may be dangerous and also to discourage people from pretending to be mentally ill in order to use the defense.[7] These realities all refute perceptions that the insanity defense creates a loophole in criminal liability.
http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/posi ... ty-defense
The availability of the insanity defence has change significantly FWIW, like I said from family experience the man who murdered my aunt got off on an insanity defence in the mid 70s and was out by the early 80s so it did happen at least once and imagine it did a lot in that time frame. Reading now it seems John Hinckley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan 1981 spurred a lot of the change.
Honestly I don't think I believe the insanity defence when it comes to the most heinous crimes, there is a line you can't cross. I wouldn't oppose the death penalty for them either at least not any more than I would anyone else, my problems with the death penalty to me is more for pragmatic reason such as that it is possible to make mistakes and that it costs so much time and money but not sympathy for the truly guilty. On a personal level, someone that hurts another human being like that should be treated like a dog that does the same.
18 Jul 2015, 2:05 pm
beneficii wrote:
Punishment has no meaning when the perpetrator either did not comprehend what they were doing or did not know right from wrong. In such cases, the perperator needs help. Because of that, I support the insanity defense in general.
Again, whether Holmes was insane I will not give my opinion, but acknowledge that the jury rejected the insanity defense in his case.
Again, whether Holmes was insane I will not give my opinion, but acknowledge that the jury rejected the insanity defense in his case.
It's more about making an example than actual punishment of the offender. That aside, about the only help I'd be willing to render is putting a bullet through his gourd.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
18 Jul 2015, 4:07 pm
Raptor wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Punishment has no meaning when the perpetrator either did not comprehend what they were doing or did not know right from wrong. In such cases, the perperator needs help. Because of that, I support the insanity defense in general.
Again, whether Holmes was insane I will not give my opinion, but acknowledge that the jury rejected the insanity defense in his case.
Again, whether Holmes was insane I will not give my opinion, but acknowledge that the jury rejected the insanity defense in his case.
It's more about making an example than actual punishment of the offender. That aside, about the only help I'd be willing to render is putting a bullet through his gourd.
Setting such an "example" will do nothing for actually insane people.
Quote:
When the nature of defendants’ mental impairments are such that they are not criminally responsible for their acts, it is not only unjust to impose criminal liability and punishment, but it is also ineffective.[2]
http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/posi ... ty-defense
By "his gourd," are you talking about Holmes? If so, you are forgetting that the jury found him sane. When I'm talking about insane people, I am NOT talking about Holmes, because the jury found him sane.
Perhaps we should take a general discussion of the insanity defense to another thread so people won't mistake us to be talking about Holmes in particular? I did not intend to turn this thread into a discussion about the insanity defense until a poster said that Holmes was "obviously insane," despite the jury finding him sane.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| School bus assault by aide in Colorado |
15 Apr 2024, 1:59 pm |
| Judge tosses out Trump's Georgia election interference case |
13 Mar 2024, 11:48 am |
