What's up with this whole "innocent by reason of insanity" thing??

Question

4 dead in home, baby hanging but alive .......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_re_us/children_killed;_ylt=Ahv8kUalgyAT5oFunwNJTnNH2ocA

I understand that people go through A LOT of things...as a woman, I know that our hearts are oceans of secrets and suppresed emotions, but come on already...killing your children???? What the hell?? How about letting them be adopted and provide joy to a loving family.

Although the woman in this article also killed herself, what about the countless others who lived and were proven "innocent by reason of insanity?" Anyone who commits a crime ~ especially murder or rape ~ has a few screws loose ... i.e. insane. But if you shoot someone (besides in self-defense), you're going to jail (in most cases). Why are these women (no, they don't even deserve to be called 'women') ... why are these ignorant heffas killing their children and not being punished?? It's time out for this. It really needs to stop!! Share your thoughts.

Answer 1

First of all, no one is ever found "innocent by reason of insanity." The verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." There is a vast difference between "innocent" and "not guilty." To understand the NGRI verdict, you must have some understanding of the legal system in which it is applied.

First, MOST crimes consist of 2 critical parts. First is "actus reas" or the guilty act. This is what most of us think of when we think about crime, that a wrongful act occurred. The SECOND part of a crime, however, is what the NGRI verdict is relevant to. That second part is "mens rea" or guilty mind. This does NOT mean that the offender feels guilty about what he/she did. It means that the actor had to have the requisite mental state in order for the crime to have been committed. The definitions of requisite mental state will vary by jurisdiction, but it does NOT equate with the standard idea of "crazy" as you use it in characterizing these people. It has more to do with knowing the difference between right and wrong and/or being able to control one's actions even if knowledgeable about right/wrong. Now, here is the important part to understand why the verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." If BOTH actus reus and mens rea are not present, THEN A CRIME DID NOT OCCUR. This does not mean the ACT did not occur, rather that the CRIME (which requires BOTH aspects) did not occur. This is why the verdict is "not guilty."

As for the ultimate outcome, however, you are mistaken that these people "get off." What happens in actuality is that someone found NGRI is incarcerated in a secure mental health facility until such time as they can show they are no longer a threat to society. In point of fact, many of these people end up serving longer time in the mental facility than they would have had they been found guilty of the crime they are accused of!

Some jurisidictions have recognized the psychological dissatisfaction that the general public has with the NGRI verdict and have changed their verdicts to "guilty, but mentally ill." Interestingly, while public satisfaction with the verdict has risen, the outcome that the defendant goes through is no different than had they been found NGRI, with the exception that they now have a conviction on their record. If you care more about outcome than the label, it doesn't matter what they call it.

BTW, the insanity defense is used extremely rarely and is "successful" even less often. Conservative estimates put its use at about 1-3% of all criminal trials and its success at about 1% of those. The reason we THINK it is used a lot and successful is that whenever it is used and successful it is usually for some horrific crime and it makes all the news. So it is easy for us to recall the incident. This is called the availability heuristic -- we overestimate the occurrence of something based on how "available" an occurrence of it happening is in our memory. If you don't believe me, research it yourself.

Answer 2

I think that our relationships are pretty much the same as heterosexual relationships. I dated men until my late 20s and have dated only women for the 4 years. The only difference I notice between the two is that I feel much more deeply connected to the women I have dated and find that being in a relationship with a woman is much more emotionally fulfilling than the ones I had with men. In terms of "gender roles" (tom-boys, effeminate men) I have found that being gay is so liberating, I don't feel the pressures that I used to when playing by society's rule book was important to me. I'll give you two examples: 1. When I was with men, I felt like I had to be feminine most of the time. I wanted to fit in with straight women and dress the part. Now, I feel the freedom play up my tomboy or femme sides of me whenever I want to. 2. When I started dating women, I was surprised to see how many expectations I had put on the men I dated that I didn't even realize (is he a good provider, etc.). When I began dating women I didn't care about any of that stuff, I was more intersted in them as people. However, I can tell you that many gay/lesbain people are NOT this way all! Some of them are looking for a very specific "type" or are very concerned that their partner has a certain social/financial status.

Answer 3

With respect to the whole idea of someone being able to be considered "innocent by reason of insanity".. I think that is one of the most stupid things in the judicial system.

While I do understand the fact that there are people that do have mental issues, etc.. What I don't find at all proper is finding them "innocent" because of it. They are still guilty of the crime no matter what the reason. What I have often thought is that the system should have a choice of "guilty, but because insane...".. then they would still be found guilty, but because they have an 'insanity' defense, then maybe they could be put in a specialized prison system... Committed to a mental hospital, etc..

Also, your comment that everyone that does commit the crimes.. especially the big ones.. obviously isn't "sane" anyway. But I do know that they have different levels of what they consider sane/insane.

My biggest concern with finding someone "innocent by reason of insanity".. is that they don't then have to pay for their crime.. which regardless of being sane or insane.. they did! And, if they're "insane" then they're obviously a danger to society, aren't they?

I think that is a law that absolutely needs to be stricken from the books and should not be allowed to be used as a defense. It can be used for reasons of sentencing and where the person goes, etc.. but in no way should they be considered INNOCENT...

Answer 4

It's not just women that do this kind of thing, how many stories have you read where men have killed their wife and children. This kind of people are to selfish to let go, or to put it bluntly they want to end their own lives but for some reason feel the need to take their children with them.

Answer 5

Insanity these days is used too often to defend someone who commits horrific crimes...Really: how can you classify someone as crazy...I mean really we all have crazy times but is that an excuse to murder someone...I think not!! I believe that even though a person claims to be crazy they should still have to pay the price...b/c there are medications out there to help people and it is the crazy persons responsibility to take that medication b/c they know what they consequences could be.....think aobut it!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

I have no response to offer. If I put down what is really on my mind regarding these senseless acts, I would get reported.

Sad, just very, very sad.

Answer 7

I don't understand it, either, and it breaks my heart each time I hear of another of these terrible tragedies.

I think that these women, in a very twisted way, think they are saving their children from...whatever it is that they, themselves, are afraid of.

Answer 8

you 've got to be insane to do a thing like that.

Answer 9

I know its just crazy isn't it?