What is your opinion on the insanity defence? Let's keep this civil.
Personally, as long as it isn't premeditated and you have a long history of very severe mental illness, you should be able to use it. Depending on the severity of your current mental illness and the circumstances, that should decide whether or not you can use it. If it's premeditated murder, yet you're incredibly mentally ill (voices telling you to kill others, mood swings, etc), that's a no-go.
Probably rambled a bit because it's late and I'm so tired and sick with influenza.
I'm not sure how American law applies it, but in Australia, pleading insanity results "not guilty by means of mental impairment" opposed to "innocent by means of mental impairment". And the distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent" is huge. Effectively, the individual is guilty and yet not guilty.
Also, in Australia, an individual that is given that verdict effectively becomes a ward of the state, and must comply with any treatment deemed necessary, while residing in a mental health hospital or specialist residence (which there is none). The length of residence within the system as a ward of the state is definite, as the individual must apply for release, with no guarantee of release. In fact most individuals spend more time as a ward of the system than most sentences for the relevant crime.
So in short, my opinion is that the defence is flawed, but not for the reasons other people might cite.
if you were severely mentally ill at the point of the crime you should be able to use it imo it doesnt matter how long you had been suffering from it lol
im not sure exactly why it's a thing, like, is it because you need treatment instead of being locked up? or is it that you can't be held responsible for your actions because you were/are really mentally ill? i think that kinda makes a difference lol because if someone was ill when they committed the crime but now they're fine and dont need treatment then the first thing doesnt rly work but idk...,
i dont know a lot about legal stuff but i definitely think that there are better places than prisons for people with very severe mental illnesses who commit crimes.
I agree with you for the most part. I think severe cases of mental illness should be allowed to have the insanity defence, which doesn't mean they get to walk free--they'd still probably be institutionalized for a long time, maybe indefinitely. I might go a bit further than you though, to say that even *certain* cases of premeditation should deserve a look at through the insanity plea. I don't know much about sociopathic/psychopathic behaviour (which often have an element of premeditation), but I feel like, if there's even the possibility that such people might become "better", institutionalization might be a better initial option.
It's funny because a lot of times "crimes of passion" get the upper hand over "cold-blooded", premeditated, murder (as a psychopath might commit). But if you think about it, the second affects a person's entire mental perceptions & ability to function/reason in society, whereas crimes of passion are usually committed by people with a history of anger issues, and so is actually less defensible (because they could have foreseen it).
