American justice tries insanity

  • News
  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of a person with a diagnosed mental illness committing a crime and facing execution. It is noted that in the United States, such individuals may be forced to take medicine after the fact in order to be deemed legally sane and face execution. The question of how American courts justify this action and how a doctor can participate in it is raised. The conversation also includes references to articles and reports discussing the implications of forcibly medicating mentally ill individuals for the purpose of execution. The conversation concludes by questioning the relevance of free will in this situation.
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,125
4
A diagnostically insane person commits what might otherwise be considered a capital crime. Often in our country, however, he is forced to take medicine after the fact in an attempt to make him legally sane, so he can face execution. How can American courts justify this action, and how can a doctor participate with it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No, if you were legally insane when you did the crime, you can't be put to death after you are 'healed'.

You always ask some odd questions, like heartless. :smile:
 
  • #3
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/7/18" [Broken]
"[URL [Broken]

http://www.nyadp.org/main/Advocate405.html" [Broken]

http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Press_Room1/2006/Press_Releases_January2006/Amnesty_Internationals_Report_on_the_Death_Penalty_and_Serious_Mental_Illness.htm" [Broken]

In supreme irony, defendants denied medical treatment before committing crimes may be forcibly medicated to make them competent to stand trial or be executed. States make people who are profoundly sick - through no fault of their own - marginally well for the sole purpose of putting them to death.

Just Google with the search terms "death penalty," "mental illness" and "forcibly medicated" together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
If that's true then it makes no sense at all. Mens rea at the time of commission should be what matters.

Then again, if you disbelieve in free will, the whole question becomes moot, even for a "sane" person.
 

1. What is the "insanity defense" in American justice?

The insanity defense is a legal strategy used in criminal trials where the defendant argues that they were not responsible for their actions due to a mental illness or defect. It is based on the principle that individuals should not be held accountable for their actions if they were not mentally capable of understanding the consequences of their behavior.

2. How is the "insanity defense" determined in American courts?

In most states, the insanity defense is determined by the M'Naghten rule, which requires that the defendant prove they were either unable to understand the nature of their actions or were unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. Other states use the Model Penal Code test, which considers whether the individual's mental illness impaired their ability to conform their behavior to the law.

3. Is the "insanity defense" commonly used in American courts?

The insanity defense is used in less than 1% of criminal cases in the United States. It is a difficult defense to prove, and even when successful, it does not result in a complete acquittal. Instead, the defendant is typically sent to a psychiatric facility for treatment until they are deemed to no longer be a danger to themselves or others.

4. Can someone who successfully uses the "insanity defense" be released back into society?

If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are typically committed to a psychiatric facility for an indefinite period of time. The length of their stay is determined by regular evaluations of their mental state and whether they are still considered a danger to society. In some cases, individuals may be released back into society if they are deemed to no longer be a threat.

5. Are there any criticisms of the "insanity defense" in American justice?

The insanity defense has been criticized for being unreliable and subjective. Some argue that it is too easy for defendants to fake or exaggerate mental illness in order to avoid punishment. Others believe that it is unfair to hold individuals with mental illness to the same legal standards as those without. The use of the insanity defense continues to be a controversial topic in the American justice system.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
70
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
235
Views
19K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
95
Views
13K
Replies
142
Views
19K
Back
Top