I've always wondered that, since no sane person would ever kill someone else out of pure randomness, couldn't any act of murder be traced to mental illness. Where do you draw the line? Is one form of mental illness more deserving of a lighter sentence than another? If they're that mentally ill that they randomly kill people, does it make any sense whatsoever NOT to put them out of their misery?
The normal formulation of the insanity defense is that the defendant was under a delusion that rendered him incapable of appreciating the criminality of his act, eg he killed someone but thought they were a space monster, or he was acting under an irresistible impulse, eg "voices" compelled him to do it. It varies from state to state. Obviously there is a high potential for faking. The consequences of an acquittal are normally a referral to a mental health facility until they agree the defendant is "cxured", whatever that means. The problem with someone who fakes is that they are cured when they get to the facility. Since there is nothing wrong with them, it is difficult for the doctors to keep them there. The John Hinckley case is a perfect example. That little shit was sane enough to be able to plan a presidential assassination, but the jury found him insane. His rich parents have been in court ever since trying to get him released, lately with some success.
I've often made that same point Aphie. If someone is so crazed that they don't understand murder to be a crime against humanity, I say thats the FIRST person I'd execute.
By the same token we should execute those who sent the troops to Iraq... I personally would object to this as I am against killing in any form, but I definitely think that people who have a mentality of mass muderers should not be running any country...
1. to insane to stand trial. Just try him later 2. to insand to have been a criminal. He is let go upon curing. The reason we have these concepts is based on upon you theory of legal incarceration. Is is rehabilitation retribution public safety My recollection from studying this in my crim law class back in 1988, is that much of the systems foundation was built on rehab. Hence, the insanity defense (tyep 2) makes sense to include in system you can not rehab a person who did not have criminal intent. Now days public safety as evidenced by 3 strikes is more of what driving the penal system. Finally, with respect to these insanity defenses we do have a "human rights" component involved.
Today on the radio I heard that they are looking for someone who kidnapped a girl while she was waiting at a bus-stop. He then proceeded to confine her in an abandoned apartment building and sexually molest her. What scares me the most is that there might be people out there who would try to defend such actions based on one's mental stability. If someone rapes, murders, tortures or kidnaps and detains another person with malacious intent, I don't personally care if they're mentally incapacitated, mentally retarded or mentally altered on some drug -- actions have repurcussions. Whether or not there was "free-will" involved in the actions is pointless, since someone else is always going to be on the shit end of the stick. Then the "super-strong" liberals will say that there shouldn't be a death penalty -- that everyone deserves a second chance. I guarantee you that any person would support the death penalty if it was there mother or daughter getting brutally raped, stabbed and tortured right in front of them. If the state didn't do the dirty work, I'm sure they would. If one is a rapist (especially kids), he or she doesn't deserve to live. If one kills another out of malacious intent, that person doesn't deserve to live.
Superfine points, but where do you draw the line? What about innocent people who get put to death? Where is their recourse? Are the families of the victims going to pay the families of the executed millions of dollars in retribution for an execution that shouldn't have taken place? NO! The taxpayers are...PERFECT! What about the medical community, who has fought relentlessly to end "lethal injection," since it basically steals a technique from people who are trying to save lives and uses it to end them? What about the fact that it costs more to execute people than it does to lock them up for life? I have yet to meet a person who supports capital punishment and yet would be willing to be the one to administer the injection, or throw the switch, etc. The biggest problem with capital punishment is that it is arbitrarily administered, the Texas case being a pretty good example. You seem to have a pretty strong case of the Hannities...throwing around the word "liberal" like you actually know what it means, but considering the number of "conservatives" on this board who seem to do very little but brag about how deep down they are really "libertarians," I ask you what could be more socialistic than giving the State the right to execute you or one of your fellow citizens?? Logic is a real problem for alot of people in this country.
I hate to admit it, but Bung has a good point. My belief in capital punishment has been weakened by the revelations of corrupt prosecutors, faked evidence, fraudulent CSI experts and a general distrust of the government. Some of this argument that there are thousands of innocent people on death row is bs. For example, the so-called exonerations from DNA evidnece often amount to much less than they first appear. All they typically prove is that another person was there, not that the defendant didn't actually do it. But there are serious miscarriages of justice, and there are enough of them to warrant extreme caution. I think the death penalty should be reserved for cases where the evidence of guilt is basically incontrovertible. But in those cases, the penalty should be carried out promptly. There is no reason to let these cases drag on for ten years.
Well, I agree with you that everything needs to be done to avoid putting an innocent person to death. However, we can't stop prosecuting and sentencing people due to the "possibility" of such a thing occuring. That reminds me of the old, "Would you rather take one innocent life or have 10 guilty people flee?" As far as the "it cost more to put someone to death than incarcerate them for life," I would really like to see some hard evidence for that. I have heard this before, but I'm not sure I believe it. If someone is 21 years old and spends 60 years in prison, how is that less expensive than a couple of appeals? And as far as finding someone to throw the switch, maybe the honors should go to the family member who lost their daughter, son, mother or father due to the murder.