[Morbid75]

I guess mental illness was a mitigating factor but he had the faculties to plan this entire thing. He knew to prop open the door, throw the tear gas-even stockpile the weapons. He could have just committed himself. Just because you are crazy is not an excuse for murdering people in my estimate. I am glad he did not get off by insanity.

I have an issue with that defense having lived a few miles when I was a kid where this guy Michael Hayes who went out in to the road and starting shooting people with a shotgun. I met one guy who lived and he said that Hayes talked to him before he shot him and it was cold calculation not a raving looney who was seeing demons. He got off by insanity and is now walking free He would have been out a lot sooner had the victim's families not protested for years. He got married in the mental institution and was able to draw his social security for a while and had all these nice electronics in his room. Then the victim's families stopped that. He should have went to jail after he was cured.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

There should only be one standard of crazy.
If you're crazy you belong in an institution.

If you're not crazy and stand trial, then you deserve what any other sane person would receive.

The problem with that is that it wouldn't reflect reality. Knowing the difference between right and wrong during the commission of a crime is different from having something chronically wrong with you that makes tragic decisions seem like a really good idea. Look at the warnings they slap on certain psychopharmaceutical medications that require multiple weeks' use to have any effect, particularly what they say about suicidal thoughts.

The M'Naughtan standard is really the bare minimum upon which justice can agree, and it's all the system really needs or should be reasonably expected to need when considering such questions as criminal liability and competence to stand trial. Premeditation alone isn't always enough.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by morbid75 ↗

I guess mental illness was a mitigating factor but he had the faculties to plan this entire thing. He knew to prop open the door, throw the tear gas-even stockpile the weapons. He could have just committed himself. Just because you are crazy is not an excuse for murdering people in my estimate. I am glad he did not get off by insanity.

I have an issue with that defense having lived a few miles when I was a kid where this guy Michael Hayes who went out in to the road and starting shooting people with a shotgun. I met one guy who lived and he said that Hayes talked to him before he shot him and it was cold calculation not a raving looney who was seeing demons. He got off by insanity and is now walking free He would have been out a lot sooner had the victim's families not protested for years. He got married in the mental institution and was able to draw his social security for a while and had all these nice electronics in his room. Then the victim's families stopped that. He should have went to jail after he was cured.

That sounds like a systemic problem to me.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

U.S prisons are institutionalized. He will most likely get admin-lock down, in the medical wing. 23 hours a day.

Given some of the reports of his conduct in prison, that's a pretty safe bet.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

U.S prisons are institutionalized. He will most likely get admin-lock down, in the medical wing. 23 hours a day.

I talked to a prison guard about this, and he told me that in his estimation half of the inmates had mental health issues.

It kind of puts the whole issue into perspective.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

The problem with that is that it wouldn't reflect reality. Knowing the difference between right and wrong during the commission of a crime is different from having something chronically wrong with you that makes tragic decisions seem like a really good idea. Look at the warnings they slap on certain psychopharmaceutical medications that require multiple weeks' use to have any effect, particularly what they say about suicidal thoughts.

The M'Naughtan standard is really the bare minimum upon which justice can agree, and it's all the system really needs or should be reasonably expected to need when considering such questions as criminal liability and competence to stand trial. Premeditation alone isn't always enough.

That standard is bullshit.

If you need to medicate someone in order to get them to a point where they can understand the court proceedings, that's an issue.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

That standard is bullshit.

If you need to medicate someone in order to get them to a point where they can understand the court proceedings, that's an issue.

It's not as much about understanding the proceedings as it is about being able to assist in one's defense. It's an invaluable legal protection.

Conversely, just because someone is too "out of it" to understand their trial doesn't mean they didn't know right from wrong at the time of commission.

If it was simply one or the other, then it would be even less reflecting of the reality of mental illness and unable to account for defendants who experience sometimes wildly different mental states throughout the course of their disorder(s).

Why should a defendant who's sane at trial time be punished unjustly if he was truly insane when he committed the crime in question? And vice versa, of course.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

I talked to a prison guard about this, and he told me that in his estimation half of the inmates had mental health issues.

It kind of puts the whole issue into perspective.

Yeah, in the 70s-80s- they ruled Sociopaths as a mental health issue that will not waiver the opinion of the judicial system. Most inmates are in fact clinical sociopaths. Around this time they separated by definition the sociopath, and a psychopath. psychopaths could still in many ways get different judicial outcomes.

in more recent years, they have molded the two as the same again.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

It's not as much about understanding the proceedings as it is about being able to assist in one's defense. It's an invaluable legal protection.

Conversely, just because someone is too "out of it" to understand their trial doesn't mean they didn't know right from wrong at the time of commission.

If it was simply one or the other, then it would be even less reflecting of the reality of mental illness and unable to account for defendants who experience sometimes wildly different mental states throughout the course of their disorder(s).

Why should a defendant who's sane at trial time be punished unjustly if he was truly insane when he committed the crime in question? And vice versa, of course.

The case that brought the whole issue into focus for me was the NY subway shooter, Colin Ferguson.

He represented himself at trial, and you can see just how fucked up he is. He rejected an insanity plea, and instead tried to claim that a mysterious asian man pressed a computer chip into his brain and remote controlled him.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Yeah, in the 70s-80s- they ruled Sociopaths as a mental health issue that will not waiver the opinion of the judicial system. Most inmates are in fact clinical sociopaths. Around this time they separated by definition the sociopath, and a psychopath. psychopaths could still in many ways get different judicial outcomes.

in more recent years, they have molded the two as the same again.

And that's exactly why the consideration of a defendant's mental state at the time of commission is so important, especially with regards to how it relates to their "normal" mental state and disposition. As self-interested individuals, sociopaths at least care about themselves enough to try and avoid incarceration; that's proof of knowing the difference between legal and illegal activity. But a delusional schizophrenic, or a manic in the throes of an intense psychotic break -- either could be sane under different circumstances.

I do firmly believe that Classic Jimbo here was an emergent schizophrenic at the time of the Aurora shooting. Did he know right from wrong and appreciate the gravity of the choice he was making? By all evidence, yes. But was he sane enough to control his impulses, or reasonably interested in his own self-preservation enough to control himself? No, I don't believe so. The jury seems to have interpreted the evidence along similar lines, and compromised with a guilty verdict but no death sentence. It wasn't a unanimous decision, and I hope someone interviews the dissenting jurors at some point.