insanity defense

In order to get off on an insanity plea, you have to convince the jury that you were incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time you committed the crime.

Note that if you succeed, you are likely to spend more time in a mental institution than you would have in prison.

>>2220369
>Why is the insanity defense even considered?

Because someone who meets the McNachten standard, (or other standards if you apply that) often either can't understand the purpose of the law or can't act in accordance with it no matter how hard they try, so the law is useless as a deterrant. Plus, they probably need medical or at least psychoactive treatment.

>If you murder people for reasons other than financial gain you're pretty clearly insane.

First off, that's retarded. Secondly, you do realize that the insanity defense applies for more than just murder, right?

>The idea of a spree killer who's found to be sane doesn't really add up.

Codes of law have very specific (if not always equivalent) definitions of 'insanity' insofar as it's a legal defense. The notion of sanity in conventional terms is irrelevant.

>>2220376
>In order to get off on an insanity plea, you have to convince the jury that you were incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time you committed the crime.

That's not technically true. Not all jurisdictions apply the McNagthen standard. Just, for instance, in the U.S.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

>>2220376

>you were incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time you committed the crime

You have to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong if you murder multiple people without benefiting from it materially.

>>2220387

>you do realize that the insanity defense applies for more than just murder

I'm just talking about spree killing.

>>2220395
>I'm just talking about spree killing.

Well too bad. Not guilty by reason of mental defect applies to any criminal act in theory. Why should spree killing get its own separately mandated bar of an affirmative defense?

>>2220399

>Well too bad.

Not too bad, it's very easy to just discuss spree killers if you aren't autistic.

>Why should spree killing get its own separately mandated bar of an affirmative defense?

I neither said they should nor said they shouldn't. I just said that's all I was talking about. It could be the case that other examples besides spree killing work similarly, but for the purpose of discussion to avoid dealing with uninteresting pedantry I'm focusing on the one example.

File: rUTTiv3.png (73KB, 454x453px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 454x453px

>>2220369
>believe people are real, government exists and killing is wrong.

This is the insanity. People and government are depersonalizations of the world to make theft and murder appear legitimate because it's not a person taking your money and killing you and using you like a slave but some nebulous abstraction and if anything it's you that's stealing and killing and controlling yourself because you are people and government is people.

Can't fool me with this semantic shit

>>2220414

>Talk about a legal issue
>Use terminology wrong.
>Expect other people to humor your idiocy instead of speaking about what you actually want to speak about.

It's not autism. It's basic education in the matter.

>I neither said they should nor said they shouldn't. I just said that's all I was talking about.

In a context about the insanity defense, where you (arbitrarily) decide that murder for non-financial reasons is 'insane', and put no categorizations on what insanity is or why it should be a bar for criminal liability, or why spree killing in particular needs some underlying insanity to perform it, other than of course, you not sharing such a motivation and not understanding why someone might or might not wish to do it.

Hell, back when I did work at the PD office, I had to defend a number of drug dealers in this one gang that got picked up. Most of them, when I worked out how much they were making and where the money was going, (conspiracy charges), were making less than minimum wage would have given them, and with considerably worse hours, risk of legal trouble, and being shot by rival gangs. Is drug pushing for financial gain 'insane'? After all, it's a very, very bad option for the overwhelming majority of people who go into that 'profession'.


> It could be the case that other examples besides spree killing work similarly, but for the purpose of discussion to avoid dealing with uninteresting pedantry I'm focusing on the one example.

I thought you were just talking about spree killing. Which is it, you goalpost shifting fucktard? Either insanity is a bad legal defense for purposes of legal theory, in which case you need to discuss criminal liability in general as well as punitive aspects to curb it, or it's about spree killing in particular, and you need to tie your theory into this one particular crime.

>>2220442

>Most of them, when I worked out how much they were making and where the money was going, (conspiracy charges), were making less than minimum wage would have given them, and with considerably worse hours, risk of legal trouble, and being shot by rival gangs. Is drug pushing for financial gain 'insane'?

No, stupidity isn't insanity. Buying lottery tickets is stupid, not insane. Poor benefit analysis isn't mental illness. There's still a clear notion of sane benefit the person is chasing after, it just isn't something they have as good a chance of getting as they think they do.

>I thought you were just talking about spree killing.

I wouldn't have to talk about non- spree killing topics if you didn't keep bringing them up. Would you prefer I just ignore your questions? And the line you quoted only mentions those other sorts of crimes for the purpose of saying I'm agnostic about them. I neither claim they should be treated differently nor do I claim they shouldn't be treated differently. I don't have an interest in them. What are your possibilities with discussing them? Either they can't be considered the same as spree killing, in which case then spree killing should be considered separately and discussion about spree killing would be with the understanding the idea only applies to it and not them, or they can be considered the same as spree killing, in which case discussing spree killing is the same as discussing both it and them.

>>2220369
>All murder is insane/irrational
Plato pls go, i like this cavern

>>2220465

>No, stupidity isn't insanity. Buying lottery tickets is stupid, not insane. Poor benefit analysis isn't mental illness. There's still a clear notion of sane benefit the person is chasing after, it just isn't something they have as good a chance of getting as they think they do.

And because that person is motivated by some non-material factor, something that is very important to them, but not necessarily to you, you label them insane? What makes murdering for revenge, or for a notion of offended honor, or to actively attempt to damage society insane?

>I wouldn't have to talk about non- spree killing topics if you didn't keep bringing them up.

You brought it up in literally the first sentence of the OP. "Why is the insanity defense even considered?" That question is equally applicable to all crimes and all motivations.

> I don't have an interest in them. What are your possibilities with discussing them?

For demonstrating that the insanity defense is a standard based around the defendant's ability to understand the law and apply it, and not to do with motivation for any individual crime; and that therefore the motivations for a particular crime, however irrational they appear to be to you, bear no meaning on whether or not insanity applies to any given defendant.

For fuck's sake, it's an affirmative defense, not attacking the motivation element of a particular crime. Crimes that require no evidence of motive, such as most incarnations of criminal trespassing, can still be defended against with insanity pleas.

>What makes murdering for revenge, or for a notion of offended honor, or to actively attempt to damage society insane?

The fact they aren't doing it to benefit themselves, except maybe for the damaging society one if they're trying to destroy some social institution that's harming them.

>That question is equally applicable to all crimes and all motivations.

Yes, I get that there are non- spree killing examples. I'm not very interested in them. This point doesn't really go anywhere beyond letting you say "haha, there are other examples so you're wrong, I sure showed you." The spree killing example is more interesting because it's something informally considered insane but legally treated as sane.

>For demonstrating that the insanity defense is a standard based around the defendant's ability to understand the law and apply it, and not to do with motivation for any individual crime

You don't need to use non- spree killing examples to make that argument. In fact I don't see how non- spree killing examples help with that argument. And in response to that argument, motivation can imply a presence or absence of understanding. If my motivation for picking up the paper in the morning was to bring it inside and read it, then that reflects an understanding of the benefits of taking the course of action. If my motivation for picking up a paper in the morning was to keep up appearances for the unseen government agents I believe are monitoring me and subtly sabotaging me as part of a mind control project, then that reflects a lack of understanding of the benefits of taking the course of action.

>>2220591
>The fact they aren't doing it to benefit themselves,


But they are doing it to benefit themselves, just by a standard different than what you would consider beneficial. Who made you the arbitrator of what is and isn't a valid motive?

>Yes, I get that there are non- spree killing examples. I'm not very interested in them.

You clearly don't get it. Insanity is an affirmative defense for all crime. It's applicability attaches to all crime. You can't just discuss it in isolation with spree killing and your disbelief in the honesty of the motives thereof.

>The spree killing example is more interesting because it's something informally considered insane

By whom?

>but legally treated as sane.

Well of course. Why shouldn't it be? Under what legally recognized standard could it possibly be considered insane, given that those standards DON'T TOUCH UPON MOTIVATION?

>You don't need to use non- spree killing examples to make that argument.

No, but I do need to demonstrate that the insanity defense applies to more than just one particular crime.

> And in response to that argument, motivation can imply a presence or absence of understanding. If my motivation for picking up the paper in the morning was to bring it inside and read it, then that reflects an understanding of the benefits of taking the course of action. If my motivation for picking up a paper in the morning was to keep up appearances for the unseen government agents I believe are monitoring me and subtly sabotaging me as part of a mind control project, then that reflects a lack of understanding of the benefits of taking the course of action.

Once again, insanity defenses have nothing to do with motive. You can even imply insanity defenses to crimes that do not require a motive at all.

>>2220613

A minor correction. "Motivation" is not a legal term. I should say "specific intent". My pardon, but I've been drinking a bit.

>>2220376
>incapable of distinguishing right from wrong
He-hey, isn't that literally every modern fucking liberal relativist?

>>2220613

>You can even imply insanity defenses to crimes that do not require a motive at all.

>>2220616

>I should say "specific intent".

There are two different things here: one is whether the crime requires specific intent and the other is whether the intent reflects in some way on the subject's mental health. Just because the intent isn't a part of establishing the crime doesn't mean the intent doesn't reflect on the subject's mental health.

>But they are doing it to benefit themselves, just by a standard different than what you would consider beneficial.

How does killing multiple people in a way that doesn't result in you gaining materially (or preventing material losses) benefit yourself?

>By whom?

Does anyone in a non-legal setting consider spree killing a sane act? I'm surprised this is a question.

>>2220639
>There are two different things here: one is whether the crime requires specific intent and the other is whether the intent reflects in some way on the subject's mental health. Just because the intent isn't a part of establishing the crime doesn't mean the intent doesn't reflect on the subject's mental health.

That's a question of evidence, not of theory as applied to the insanity defense as a legal doctrine. If you can prove by say, examining the defendant after apprehension that he meats whatever standard of insanity your locale uses, you need not delve into his intent for the crime at all.

>How does killing multiple people in a way that doesn't result in you gaining materially (or preventing material losses) benefit yourself?

By benefiting you in a non-material fashion. Maybe you tie up your notion of well-being in how you did harm to an enemy. Maybe you care about your social standing among such people who would view the act as honorable. Maybe some other reason. Why is material gain the only 'valid' specific intent?

>Does anyone in a non-legal setting consider spree killing a sane act

I usually see it portrayed as a horrific act, but not necessarily an insane one. Hell, most mental health professionals don't even like the term "insanity" as if it's some binary choice. Can you even articulate a universal, colloquial meaning for the term"insanity"?

>>2220395
>You have to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong if you murder multiple people without benefiting from it materially

No. You don't.