Hinckley to be released

even flow - question mark

oftenreading said:

pjhawks said:

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again? I take it as a rational punishment that has been served which speaks directly to how fair our system can be. how many other countries in the world would someone attempt to assassinate the leader and not be executed themselves? for all the bitching people do about America doesn't this speak well of us?

Personally, I don't see any "punishment" is necessary if actions are directly due to a medical condition over which the individual did not have control. That's the way the law sees it as well, at least where I live. Psychosis is a neurological condition. How many people would genuinely want to punish someone who had a stroke while driving, plowed into a crowd of people, and killed several of them? Not many of us would want to see that person in jail serving multiple life sentences for murder, even though their medical condition caused them to kill people. Yet many want to see someone who injures or kills someone directly related to psychosis jailed for life, or given the death penalty.

To equate somebody who is not able to function in society without the use of mood altering drugs to keep them from going off the deep end and somebody having a stroke behind the wheel of a car is a bit of a stretch. Ain't it?

Degeneratefk

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

oftenreading

even flow - question mark said:

oftenreading said:

pjhawks said:

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again? I take it as a rational punishment that has been served which speaks directly to how fair our system can be. how many other countries in the world would someone attempt to assassinate the leader and not be executed themselves? for all the bitching people do about America doesn't this speak well of us?

Personally, I don't see any "punishment" is necessary if actions are directly due to a medical condition over which the individual did not have control. That's the way the law sees it as well, at least where I live. Psychosis is a neurological condition. How many people would genuinely want to punish someone who had a stroke while driving, plowed into a crowd of people, and killed several of them? Not many of us would want to see that person in jail serving multiple life sentences for murder, even though their medical condition caused them to kill people. Yet many want to see someone who injures or kills someone directly related to psychosis jailed for life, or given the death penalty.

To equate somebody who is not able to function in society without the use of mood altering drugs to keep them from going off the deep end and somebody having a stroke behind the wheel of a car is a bit of a stretch. Ain't it?

No. It's not a stretch at all. That's exactly my point. Both people have neirological conditions that affected their behaviour.

Unless you are saying that psychosis is not a "real" medical condition?

Another example for you? Diabetes can affect your behaviour if your blood sugar isn't well controlled. Diabetics need medication to manage their condition. Should they be allowed in society?

oftenreading

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

The short answer is yes. Obviously, not everyone with psychosis responds well to treatment, but contrary to what most people probably believe the majority of people with schizophrenia or related psychotic illnesses will respond well to treatment and then be able to live their lives productively in the community. A small minority have such treatment-resistant illness that they won't be "sane" even with treatment.

And the severity of actions taken while psychotic actually bears no relation to whether someone is successfully treatable. What's more important, it also bears no relation to future risk to the public. That is very well supported in evidence that was unfortunately completely ignored by the former Canadian conservative government when they came up with their high risk designation for people found what we call not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (what the US calls not guilty by reason of insanity).

oftenreading

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

Unless I misunderstood your question, DF. If you are asking would a person who became "sane" be made to go back to to court face the charges again, then the answer is no.

Who Princess

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

As I said earlier, sane and insane are legal terms, not medical. Yes, people who have severe mental illnesses can be treated and function normally. Bipolar disorder has received a lot of attention in recent years, with an understanding that if people stay on their medications they can continue to be employed and have the same kind of life most of us want. What a lot of people don't realize is that bipolar disorder can be as debilitating as schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia isn't considered chronic until an individual has at least 3 episodes. I knew a woman who had been treated for schizophrenia. She had a responsible job, had been promoted twice when I knew her, and had received bonuses for outstanding work. She was married and hoping to have children. She wasn't "crazy" anymore. She didn't hear voices or have weird delusions. There's absolutely no reason why someone like that has to spend their life in a psych hospital.

Degeneratefk

oftenreading said:

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

Unless I misunderstood your question, DF. If you are asking would a person who became "sane" be made to go back to to court face the charges again, then the answer is no.

No, that wasn't what I was asking. Hinckley was found not guilty. So he can't be tried again. Makes you wonder if one can be found guilty even if he is insane. He still tried to kill the president. He is guilty. Maybe the legal terminology needs to be changed.

oftenreading

Degeneratefk said:

oftenreading said:

Degeneratefk said:

Can a person deemed insane ever become sane again?

Unless I misunderstood your question, DF. If you are asking would a person who became "sane" be made to go back to to court face the charges again, then the answer is no.

No, that wasn't what I was asking. Hinckley was found not guilty. So he can't be tried again. Makes you wonder if one can be found guilty even if he is insane. He still tried to kill the president. He is guilty. Maybe the legal terminology needs to be changed.

Depends on your definition of "guilt", I guess. But your reasoning is part of why Canada moved away from that terminology to "not criminally responsible"; i.e. there is recognition in law that the individual committed the act but they are not being held legally responsible. If anyone is interested in the legal rationale of why I could go into it, but be warned, it involves some Latin....

And retreading your text, you have another question there. Yes, someone can certainly be found guilty and also be "insane" (that is, experiencing psychosis). It depends on how tightly the actions are linked to the psychosis. If you were really psychotic and you stole some chocolate bars because you were hungry and wanted them, you wouldn't be found NGRI (or NCRMD). If you were really psychotic and killed someone because you were angry at them because they took your chocolate bars, you would not be found NGRI. People with psychosis still have a range of thoughts and motivations, like anyone else.

Who Princess

Degeneratefk said:

No, that wasn't what I was asking. Hinckley was found not guilty. So he can't be tried again. Makes you wonder if one can be found guilty even if he is insane. He still tried to kill the president. He is guilty. Maybe the legal terminology needs to be changed.

The insanity defense is rarely used and rarely succeeds. So yes, people who are legally insane can be found guilty.

Hinckley's case is unusual because of who he attacked and because of his acquittal. If he had been convicted of, say, attempted murder, he would likely be paroled by now after serving 35 years. Especially if he'd shot some Joe Shmoe instead of the president.

oftenreading

As WhoP alludes, there are far, far more people with serious mental illness being found guilty of crimes and incarcerated than there are individuals being found NGRI.

even flow - question mark

oftenreading said:

even flow - question mark said:

oftenreading said:

pjhawks said:

even flow - question mark said:

An insane guy, free, in a country where getting guns is like shooting fish in a barrel. Makes perfect sense.

so do you not believe that people who suffer with mental illness should ever be allowed to be free again? I take it as a rational punishment that has been served which speaks directly to how fair our system can be. how many other countries in the world would someone attempt to assassinate the leader and not be executed themselves? for all the bitching people do about America doesn't this speak well of us?

Personally, I don't see any "punishment" is necessary if actions are directly due to a medical condition over which the individual did not have control. That's the way the law sees it as well, at least where I live. Psychosis is a neurological condition. How many people would genuinely want to punish someone who had a stroke while driving, plowed into a crowd of people, and killed several of them? Not many of us would want to see that person in jail serving multiple life sentences for murder, even though their medical condition caused them to kill people. Yet many want to see someone who injures or kills someone directly related to psychosis jailed for life, or given the death penalty.

To equate somebody who is not able to function in society without the use of mood altering drugs to keep them from going off the deep end and somebody having a stroke behind the wheel of a car is a bit of a stretch. Ain't it?

No. It's not a stretch at all. That's exactly my point. Both people have neirological conditions that affected their behaviour.

Unless you are saying that psychosis is not a "real" medical condition?

Another example for you? Diabetes can affect your behaviour if your blood sugar isn't well controlled. Diabetics need medication to manage their condition. Should they be allowed in society?

Now diabetics I can be on board with. The people I've known that had strokes, ah, how do I say this, but it just happened. They weren't on drugs for stroke prevention. The dude here at work who had one at seven to the uncle who had one at eighty.

And for the point of being rehabilitated. Again, if you've killed somebody due to voices in your head. I'd rather you have the new and improved person as your neighbour then mine.