Am I the only one who finds a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" idiotic? You can't commit a murder and not be held accountable. Wouldn't "guilty by reason of insanity" make more sense? While writing this, I realize two things: one, I'm prejudiced against Andrea Yates because of the terrible things she did in my hometown, and two, while insanity isn't any kind of mask to hide behind, it's as much an agent of the murder as the actual murderer is. It must be heart-wrenching to be waiting for some kind of retribution and hear, instead, that the person who destroyed the lives of people around them is not guilty of a crime, and can walk free after treatment.
Reforms in the verdict system
Actually, "guilty by reason of insanity" has been suggested and offered as an update to this aging and useless verdict. This would not only allow for a proper ruling and care under the protection of the judicial system, but also the provision of some solace to families of victims. Murder is murder, and there's no changing that. I would rather people not try.
Read 15 comments (Leave a comment?)
Belinda said:
As a psychology and law student, I can tell you that a plea of “insanity” is not as pleasant a one as you think. It’s not as simple as you say, that you can just “walk free after treatment” because the insanity you’re getting treatment for is for murdering people. You don’t just get a pill and walk away from something like that.
The plea of insanity isn’t used as often as one might think because you simply don’t know when you’re supposed to be freed. With a conviction, at least you know you’re in for x amount of time, but with a mental institution there’s a very good chance you’ll be in there forever, especially after being convicted of murder.
And if a person is genuinely out of their mind and suffering a psychotic episode when they did what they did, if they can be truly treated for it (as I said, that’s not as simple as you might think) then I don’t know why they shouldn’t get acquitted for it. Legal defenses exist because you don’t lock someone up unless they did the act and intended to do the act. If “murder is murder” then I guess self-defense should not be a defense. Next time someone stabs another to death because they were defending their child from assault, should they be convicted to the same degree as a murderer?
As you said, you probably are biased because of how the alleged murderer had affected your hometown. But sorry to say, the law can’t be unreasonably cruel because of your want for retribution. If that’s how it works, then the world would be in anarchy because people would be taking justice into their own hand or “justice” would be served to those however the judge feels like it. It’s a terrible thing for the victim’s family to bear, but what’s done is done. It’s no more tragic than if their loved ones had been killed by an avalanche or some kind of natural disaster. The answer then and in this case isn’t revenge, nor is it the purpose of the law to dish out individual revenge.
Posted on November 27, 2006 5:49 AM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Well, I didn’t quite mean it like that. I understand that insanity or any sort of mental condition is an extremely painful and terrible situation for people who suffer from it/them. But I don’t like that they’re deemed “not guilty” by reason of insanity. They obviously committed the crime, shouldn’t they at least be called guilty? That’s all I ask. The treatment afterwards would be the same help they would receive anyway. I’m just adverse to the idea of someone committing a crime and that fact zipping by. I’m also fairly paranoid that people will exploit that verdict.
When I said “walk free”, I was thinking judicially. Prisoners are moved around all the time from hospitals to prisons to rehabilitation to prisons again. Surely a transition from a mental hospital to a prison is at least one step towards freedom. I never truly intended any sort of mental freedom because the guilt and the agony of illness will always be there.
Self defense is just that - self defense. Numerous people have been tried and convicted of murder under that pretense, though, so it’s not infallible. In the same way that it takes a few trials and a good deal of analysis to determine if someone is mentally insane, denoting self defense takes a while too. I’m not going to argue you on this fact - self defense is murder as well, but it’s murder than can be legitimized, and might, in some situations, be an acceptable alternative to what might have happened.
I never asked the law to be cruel. I just find the Andrea Yates incident terrible. Just thinking about how a loving mother could turn into a murderer baffles me - and you know, she’s obviously guilty. Why not term her “guilty” and carry on? Even if you switch the burden to “guilty”, the insanity still takes the blame, but at least you acknowledge that you do it. The only necessary reforms would then be to acknowledge such a verdict and create some sort of precedent for it. Obviously there’s a range to the insanity a court will dismiss under either of the “by reason of insanity” verdicts, but if there’s that window of opportunity, where you can both accept your actions and try to become a better person, why not take it?
Thanks for your comments and your insight :)
Posted on November 27, 2006 5:55 PM; Permalink
Belinda said:
Firstly, “guilty” has a particular meaning, you can’t just change it to suit your own preferences. Legally speaking, in most cases of criminal law (ignoring strict liability crimes), to be found “guilty” involve both a “guilty act” AND a “guilty mind”. The INTENTION to do an illegal act is just as crucial as the act itself. You can’t call it “guilty” if there was no actual intention from a sane person’s mind.
Secondly, I’m not talking about mental freedom, I was and am saying that mental institutions are not necessarily better than prisons. Sure, prisons are incredibly harsh environments, but there’s no doubt to people that you’re a sane, rational human being. But the conditions of many public mental institutions are terribly overcrowded and understaffed, people suffer a different type of punishment in mental institutions. Especially if it could be suffered indefinitely for those whom are convicted of mental illness that caused death of others.
Thirdly, no one is every convicted for self-defence. It’s a complete defence for a reason, and if it’s successful, then the person would be freed. If it’s NOT successful, then they will be convicted. And once again you’re misusing terminology. It’s NOT MURDER because murder requires a guilty mind and a guilty act. If a person was driven to have no choice but to kill to defend themselves or somoene else that’s NOT murder if there is a defence for it. It’s a killing yes, but murder is a very particular thing.
And lastly, no I DON’T know that she’s guilty just because of how the media may have spun it. I (and probably you) weren’t in the courtroom to hear the evidence presented. If it was proven that she did commit the crime but was NOT in the right mind what that happened, then she’s not guilty. Once again, comes back to the misunderstanding of the word on your part, at least in terms of legality. I don’t blame you of course, I don’t expect everyone to know what certain terms mean in law, but I hope I’ve indicated that things really aren’t as simple as it may seem. It might be a difficult thought to bear, but sometimes (and it seems so in this case) there is no one to blame. You can’t just assign it to someone, not based on ALL the evidence and circumstances but merely because it feels right.
Posted on November 27, 2006 10:37 PM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Well, a murder could still happen even if the person had no intent of actually killing the person. I’ve seen this in the news for beatings and things, when things just go so far. They still committed the crime, even if they didn’t intend to take it that far. That’s guilty enough for me, that ignorance. With insanity though, it’s harder to correctly assign a verdict, because often you aren’t aware if you’re committing a crime at all. It’s a grand delusion. And it’s terrible. But they’re still liable, in some way. They are still guilty because they did commit the crime. The change in title is all that is necessary to communicate that fact.
Of course mental institutions can be hellholes just as easily as prisons! I don’t believe I stated otherwise. There, a person has to exist with the fact that society finds them “crazy” and “dangerous”. When they are released to a normal prison though, perhaps the thought that society no longer finds them “crazy” passes by them. That might give someoone hope, that crucial transition from being both crazy and dangerous to simply “dangerous” and going from there.
I’m not familiar with any legal terms (Debate doesn’t take you too far in that), so I’m using my vocabulary. Murder is very easily defined, and so is guilty without any complications associated with using legal jargon. Legally, however, the twist is that murder must be premeditated. I actually wrote a Debate case concerning whether or not a victim of repeated domestic violence could utilize deadly force for the sake of self defense. Within that, while arguing affirmative, I remember the standard argument against me was the “self-defense is deliberate; therefore, deadly force is murder;” charge. If I remember right, I argued that the body will attempt to defend itself as long as it is capable (flinching, dodging, ducking), and that murder might be a result, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be deliberate. Accidents happen - especially in these cases - again, my argument is just that the “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea feels a little weak.
Forgive me for this: I may be primitive, but in most scenarios (insanity excluded), if it can be proven that someone committed a crime, they are guilty of it. They are liable for what they did, either now or somewhere down the road. As far as insanity goes, if we think as the body as a vessel of the mind, and charge one with an offense and grant the other a pardon, things become disjointed. The body committed a crime under the influence of the mind, a mind that was probably elsewhere. Just a thought: if the effects of heavy drugs and alcohol can cause the same sort of mental cacophony associated with insanity, and they too are under the influence…, couldn’t an insane person still be held accountable? Eventually, they too will come to terms with what they did, and I can only assume it’s a painful and terrible thing. It’s not like our judicial system is perfect either, and a few changes (not necessarily mine) would be welcome. After all, we let O.J. get away :)
Posted on November 27, 2006 11:43 PM; Permalink
Belinda said:
If you (and the media and society) feel it’s easier to define “murder” as one thing, that is, merely the act of killing a human being, then so be it. But that is not, and cannot be the legal definition. It has a strict set of rules which it must abide by so that it could equally apply to all citizens let still tailored to maintain justice. Oh and by the way, reckless negligence that cause the death of another person IS considered to equate to a guilty mind (I don’t think I emphasised that earlier, sorry) because a reasonable person wouldn’t beat someone to death.
But the point is, you’re still trying to assign the blame, but as I’ve said before, sometimes there unfortunately isn’t someone to blame. Just because someone was there and did do the act, if they didn’t intend to do it, then then they are NOT GUILTY. You can say “well that’s unfair, then who IS guilty?” well I’m sorry but no one is. The alleged murderer would have to probably spend an indefinite amount of time in a mental institution because of their probable psychotic episode that resulted in the tragic death of an innocent but they are not guilty. The law isn’t a medium to neatly hand the label “guilty” to someone, sometimes there is no one guilty to be found.
Just a note, there’s a difference between Provocation and Self-Defence as defences to murder. The latter is a complete defence (i.e. a not guilty sentence) and the latter is a partial defence (i.e. reduction in sentence to manslaughter). An example of the latter is if someone taunts and verbally abuses you to such a degree and you lashed out, and killing that person. That’s not self-defence in many way. Many self-defence cases, especially when it comes to domestic violence, ultimately fail on self-defence but succeed in provocation. The law isn’t so lenient as to let people walk free all the time, they have to acknowledge the impact of the act yet also the mindset and reason for the act. But even cases of provocation cases, while the offender is guilty it is not of murder but manslaughter. Even that is an example illustrating how law doesn’t treat the killing of a person as a simple labelling of “guilty” and “not guilty”.
If a person was proved to have committed a crime, then they are guilty, that is what “proved to have committed” means. However, the standard of proof for criminal cases usually is “beyond reasonable doubt” in that the jury (might differ in some cases) have to unanimously agree that it the person is guilty. The implication is that the liberty of a person is ultimately paramount and you can only take it away and convict them to being incarcerated only if there very convicting evidence they did it. I believe that is a fair system. OJ might have gotten away because of this, but I believe he was latter sued for his money (for battery I think) and lost because the standard of proof is lower.
As for alcohol (in Sydney, Australia at least) being under the influence, if it’s self-induced, does not absolve you of your crime in the same way that insanity would. Judges here ignore the fact that a person was intoxicated during an act unless for some very specific reasons.
Posted on November 28, 2006 7:18 AM; Permalink
Skye said:
Wow, after all of that, my comment is probably going to sound really ignorant! Or something… :)
That’s an interesting thing to propose - “guilty by reason of insanity” but I think that I agree with Belinda’s point that “guilty” has a particular definition. Words (and phrases) are highly contextual, and changing the phrase can completely alter the meaning.
Personally though, to me guilty implies what Belinda said - guilty act and guilty mind. So to me, if a person wasn’t in control of themselves due to a psychological problem, then why should they be labelled as “guilty”? That’s an unfair label, in a society that judges almost everything by the label.
Posted on November 28, 2006 2:58 PM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
I definitely agree that it’s hard to find anyone to blame for a crime. Also, thanks for including the term “manslaughter”. I think I was reaching for that the entire time I was shouting out “murder”, so that was frustrating on my end to be unable to find that term. Back to the argument at hand though - it seems as if all the consequences of a guilty verdict can be echoed in a not-guilty one. It still seems like a form of imprisonment that has even knocks over so many social dominos (“You spent how many years in a mental institution? For what?”) than the explosion you would see over a murder in which the criminal was completely in charge of their mind. I think what triggers my reaction the most is the thought that little children just aren’t supposed to die the way Andrea Yates’ did. It was the first time I had ever heard the verdict “not guilty by reason of insanity”, and I didn’t understand it much then. I think I’m slowly coming closer to grasping all of it.
I agree that the mindset is as important as the action itself, now that I think about it. Without the proper mindset, a murder could be classified as any number of things, including an act of insanity. And I definitely remember being on a mock jury before and having to discuss again and again until it was a completely unanimous vote, just so we wouldn’t be mistaken that in certain situations, someone’s life would be in our hands. Murder has always been, and always will be, the greatest test of society. How do you treat someone who has killed someone just like you? How can you be fair and right at the same time? Couldn’t one death lead to another and another? And in spite of this, we manage to hold legal proceedings fairly successfully and give these people a chance to speak for themselves and in part, apologize to society for their crimes by going through the legal system (this could also be considered society’s allowance on their part). And, as always, we look on insanity with a little bit of caution. We have to set the precedent on how to try those among us who vary slightly from what we assume to be the human conscience, and we have to be right, as much as humanly possible. In hindsight, perhaps the thought was a little stupid; I didn’t realize there were so many miniature barriers to a simple word change (or what I thought was a simple omission), but they’re in place to make sure we don’t make the mistake of overlooking why they’re there. Now that I think about it, maybe legal processes aren’t the best things to think about when you’re a bit sleep deprived!
Skye: (I fixed your comments - sorry, my site timed out on everyone today, it seems) At the time, it felt to me as if people who received such a verdict were let off easy as far as not being legally liable for a crime that they committed in an altered state of mind. I guess I didn’t consider the mindset as much as I did the actual act of murder, and that’s what probably made the verdict seem so abominable to me, but you know? It’s good that we can clarify things linguistically to apply to different things. I’m only afraid that the next time I blame a mess on my dog, she’ll use this process against me since she is a dog of very little brain :)
Thank you both for participating in this - of course, I don’t make a habit of turning comments off, but let’s hope the thread doesn’t die. I’m still a bit interested to know what people think of this.
Posted on November 28, 2006 11:02 PM; Permalink
Jackie said:
(From Despair) I don’t really have anything to say about this thread because well, you and Belinda have said it all. However, I feel that a person who’s guilty by reason of insanity will get his/her fair share of punishment. I think insanity is as bad as prison. I’d rather be sane and live in a prison than live in an aslyum and be a mad nutter. Sorry, i’m just rambling…. :( I don’t think anyone will “get” what i’m actually saying.
Posted on November 30, 2006 12:31 AM; Permalink
Maladjusted (Despair) said:
Reading some of the other comments you recieved, I have to agree with the definition of Guilty, in mind and action.
Legal insanity is defined as the person suffereing from severe mental disease or defect. A defect that can include MPD (multiple personality disorder) where two or more personalities can exist in the same body/mind, with one personality not being aware of the other/s. Now I am not refering the case of Andrea Yates, as that is not someting I am familar with. But in general how can you punish some with MPD? Can you only punish the one personality?
There are other forms of insanity where the person is not understanding their actions and if they dont understand, what would be the point of punishing them if they dont understand why? Yes is would give the victems family satisfaction, but what would stop them from commiting murder again when they are out?
Posted on November 30, 2006 6:53 AM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Jackie: I agree with you fully (my statements are somewhere above, mingled in with the definition debate) that insanity is pretty terrible. I mean, if you were insane, you would have to live with the condition for a good deal of time, if not your entire life. For prison, you just walk in and walk out, and while it’s going to be on your records that you served and your job opportunities somewhat decrease from that, you’re essentially free. Insanity is something hidden that may or may not present itself, and it’s the lack of control that scares me. You can try to hold everything inside, but it doesn’t always work, which is the reason for this article.
Maladjusted: Well, for the insane, you don’t necessarily stick them in a prison and let them wait out their sentence; I’m sure there’s an influx of patients that go into mental hospitals, rehabilitation centers and the like first before prison. Personally, I think all murderers are a wee bit insane simply for committing the crime, but that would be a logistical nightmare.
“Peters?” “He’s insane.” “Johnson?” “Completely mad.” “Douglas?” “You know, I don’t actually know. He’s the only one who tries to eat his dinner when it’s brought to him.” “Insane.”
Posted on November 30, 2006 7:07 AM; Permalink
Sophie said:
I really don’t know where I can stand on this. And if I did have a standpoint, I think you and Belinda may have covered it. What I do know, is that if somebody has killed through insanity, I don’t think they should be allowed out again unless there is certainty that they cannot commit the crime again, and as that is pretty much impossible, I guess I’m against them being released at all. I guess my comment must look rather pathetic after those that have been before. But I do know someone that this has affected, and the guy may get away with it, despite the fact that he’s obviously bonkers (pretend I did that I little more politically correct) and I know I don’t ever want him on the streets ever again, as he knows where my loved ones live. So yeah, going back to your original point which this comment drifted one slightly, I can neither agree nor disagree on whether the verdict should be guilty or non-guilty, as though the person has physically commited the crime, it was actually the mental illness encouraging it.
Posted on November 30, 2006 11:08 AM; Permalink
Pioneer Woman said:
Astute arguments here, and I don’t know where I stand, but I think “Guilty But Insane” makes sense. Not Guilty implies a level of innocence, which a murderer just can’t claim.
Yikes. I’d much rather shop online than use my brain this much. ;)
Posted on November 30, 2006 1:33 PM; Permalink
Hristina said:
Hey! I’m sorry, but I don’t really know what to say. Insanity is bad and awful. I think those kind of people should go to the special institution, just to be sure nobody gets hurt. =x
Posted on November 30, 2006 1:34 PM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Sophie and Pioneer Woman: If only there were some sort of neutral verdict; I’m just worried about what that would achieve judicially, if you can’t pick guilty or not guilty. That might be taking the system a little too far, but it’s a good idea at any rate!
Hristina: Insanity is a terrible thing to live; no one really considers it a societal danger. It’s a rarity that a insane person tries to hurt and kill someone - murders occur most often among perfectly sane people (well, not morally sane). And to add to this, insanity is a pretty broad grouping, and each case is going to be different. For comparison, if you think pizza is absolutely fatal based on one or two incidents of pizza killing people, that’s flawed logic. What about the other eight pizzas?
And we’re done!
Posted on November 30, 2006 3:46 PM; Permalink
Hiko said:
if everybody in the world were insane, would we still call ourselves as such? if by no other method, we might judge people as insane by comparison; if they are so far removed from what is generally considered normal mental capability, then it may be presumed that their actions are construed from the normal, that they don’t have the same kind or level of control over their mental faculties. otherwise, how should one fairly determine if they are truly responsible for their own actions, especially if the inappropriate actions they must take that responsibility for are not set in stone by god, but merely things decided by that general population? yes, I will always associate mathematics and science to just about everything - long live statistics!
Posted on December 1, 2006 1:52 AM; Permalink