Uechi-Ryu.com

Tried to post this elsewhere to no avail:

"I'm not going to dig up my old posts on mental illness and crime, but anyone else is welcome to, and I'd be surprised if I said ANY mental illness precludes responsibility for a crime. The lifetime prevalence of depression in women is 1/4 these days, and ADHD seems to be about 99% as well. I think what I said was more along the lines that someone whose mental illness impaired their ability to tell right from wrong should be treated rather than punished. If you're crazy as a loon and you kill someone for $100, you're still a murderer in my eyes and the eyes of the law. Ask Dahmer.

Of note, I recently posted that lethal force was appropriate against a mentally ill person even if they're completely blameless if the hand is forced, which was quite in line with that thread's theme, actually."

But the upshot for this thread will actually be: what are the nuances that govern when someone is or is not responsible for their crime? Mental illness of what kind? Rage? Prior experiences? What counts as an excuse for what?

Thanks Ian. Without looking up posts, I made that statement. Since it was my memory and that has access errors sometimes, I can't truly say whether it is correct or not. So... Thank you for the clarification and my apologies for the misrepresentation.

Take care...

IJ wrote:But the upshot for this thread will actually be: what are the nuances that govern when someone is or is not responsible for their crime? Mental illness of what kind? Rage? Prior experiences? What counts as an excuse for what?

I don't feel qualified to make any certain guidelines for what forms of mental illness constitute an excuse. Here are some things I don't think should count.

Rage
With no other extenuating circumstance, simply being enraged should not excuse a person for committing a crime.

Prior experience
If it's along the lines of killing a guy with a blue turtleneck because your brother got killed by a guy with a blue turleneck (obviously a silly example, but shows the basic idea) then I don't think it should constitute an excuse.

In my mind, only real and thoroughgoing insanity should count. Schizophrenia in some cases, for example.

Panther, thanks and no prob.

Here are some scary ones from past US law:

--a man in TX used to be able to kill if he found his wife with another man

--many, many times has the "gay panic" defense been used--"I killed him because he came on to me... or I thought he would." Frequently successfully. Other lame excuses are used when the victim was gay... This happened with the assassination of Harbey Milk in San Fran. There was also a court case where a defense lawyer tried to get a corpse tested for HIV to see if the charges could be reduced. More recently this was shot down in the trial of the thugs who killed Matt Shepard.

The current standard with mental illness isn't diagnosis (biploar, schizophrenia, psychotic depression) but rather impariment. Many schizos are out in the community doing fine. If they were to kill, it would be a crime and their disease is no excuse. Even if they were floridly nuts, it's not a get out of jail free card. Example:

Man is floridly insane and honestly thinks the devil inhabits people and that killing them will save their immortal souls by freeing them, and gets an insurance policy on his daughter then kills her: Guilty.

Same man thinks his daughter is inhabited by devil and kills her because he hears jesus telling him to do so to save her: NGBROI.

I guess we should talk about what consitutes a reason for a lesser sentance... or whether we should have 2nd, 3rd degree, manslaughter... the murder or not is more open shut.

The case of a gentleman with schizophrenia the government would like to medicate in order to prosecute is now headed to the supreme court....

dealt with this subject recently.

Of course TV can present a subject in a way that doesn't fairly present a subject. But... in this episode, the woman (on meds) became quite sane and harmless. It didn't appear fair to execute a person under these conditions.

(1) Russell Weston, the man accused of shoting up the Capital Building, is, as we speak, being forced medications to treat his psychosis. The Appeals Court ruled that the state's interest in prosecuting the defendant outweighs his right to refuse medication, The Supreme Court turned down his appeal. The wrinkle in this case is that he hasn't shown any real improvement.

(2) A Missouri dentist, Dr. Charles Sell, in jail and accussed of submitting false Medicaid and insurance claims is currently refusing medications to treat his schizophrenia in order to make him competant to stand trial. Both sides agree that he is delusional, but the Bush Administration wants to medicate him, in order to try him.

(3) Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed itself and is allowing the execution of a convicted murderer, Charles Singleton, who, while competant to stand trial, slipped into psychosis while in prison. He sued to stop his execution becasue he is mentally imcompetant, and the 8th Circuit Court agreed initially and issued a decision to that effect in Oct., 2001. However, they have since reversed themselves and is allowing the state to medicate him so that he is competant to be executed. This case is also going in front of the Supreme Court.

It bears noting that in 1990 that the SC ruled that a convicted prisoner may be forced antipsychotic medication if there is an "overriding justification and determination of medical appropriateness".

The court also ruled in 1992 that a criminal defendant may be forced medication if "medically appropriate and essential for the safety of the defendant and others".

The court, in neither opinion, ruled that the state's interest in prosecuting the accused outweighs the accused's fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. One does not loose a fundamental right when you're arrested.

Now, my opinion:

(1) It's wrong to force medications upon a defendant, in order to make him competant to stand trial, if he is otherwise incompetant.

(2) It's wrong to force medications upon the condemned, in order to make them competant to be executed.

My fear is that the Nine Wise will rule that it is wholly appropriate to make a person sane, solely for the purposes of trying him (like the Feds are trying to do with Weston and Sell) or executing him (like Arkansas is trying to do with Singleton)

But, that's just me...

Gene

PS We've discussed this before, if anyone wants to do some background reading.

I agree that both of those scenarios are wrong, but wish to add a third:

It is wrong to withold medication from someone that would otherwise clearly benefit as part of legal maneuvering.

So what does that leave as options for people trying to do "right?"

It is wrong to withold medication from someone that would otherwise clearly benefit as part of legal maneuvering.

If we truly believe in individual autonomy, and truly believe that forced medication may only be done to protect a patient from harm to himself, or harm done to others by him...

AND we also belive that even the mentally ill may refuse medications, just like you and me...

AND if we truly belive that criminal defendants have a right to avail themselves of all legal rights and procedures....

Then why is it wrong to withold medication from someone that would otherwise clearly benefit as part of legal maneuvering?

Sounds like a sound legal strategy to me.

Gene

I don't think "we" as a country at least DO believe that meds may only be used to prevent harm to a patient or others. I saw many people, primarily schizophrenics, some bipolars, brought in after acting in a totally disorganized way, being paranoid, tearing apart their apartment, or being near catatonic, otherwise unable to function--but no threat to themselves or others, in the sense that we could keep them locked up and hand fed for life--get forced meds.

I do not think insanity is "free speech" nor a foundation for making informed decisions that constitute individual autonomy.

I agree that SOME mentally ill, perhaps MOST, can refuse meds. Others clearly lack the capacity and also clearly do better on them.

Sound legal strategies do not result in people needlessly lying in a cell completely insane picking imaginary bugs off themselves and overcome with paranoia.

If the concern is that trying to help these people function mentally is going to lead to their execution, then we need some way to ensure that we can treat without becoming an accomplice to a killing. (Most docs I know--I mean the reputable ones--use their skills to make people better, or make them feel better, and ought not be participating in killing either directly or indirectly by treating mental illness to allow execution.)