Bad Santa. No, I mean REALLY Bad.

[morethanpretty]

You agreed with him. You can't defend your own opinion?

[classicman]

I think you're point is a very stupid one. I can defend myself just fine thanks. I've been doing it here for longer than you've been around - mmmkay?

[morethanpretty]

My point is: why should I ask Radar specifically when you agreed with him? You don't know what you agreed to or why? I was asking you, and you don't have an answer to the question? If you can defend yourself, why aren't you? Did you just realize your point is stupid and am now attacking me, to pull attention away from your stupid narrow minded post?

[classicman]

OK, for those of you who can't read, I never agreed with radar, I tried to defend what I thought was his position. Since radar explained himself, I'll try to explain where I stand on this.

I do not consider defense; whether it be of ones life, loved ones property or country to be murder.
If you intentionally kill someone because you were on drugs or whatever, I do not think that should be a viable excuse. If you commit premeditated murder - no excuses.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by classicman

If you intentionally kill someone because you were on drugs or whatever, I do not think that should be a viable excuse. If you commit premeditated murder - no excuses.

Drugs (or alcohol) are a choice. Crazy, and by that I mean real, genuine crazy, isn't.

Everybody gets really hot over the "insanity defense," when it's actually used quite rarely, and even then rarely succeeds.

Apparently it's only used in 0.85% of criminal defenses nationwide, and only succeeds 0.26%.

Consider also, that most of those cases are not capital crimes ... One of our psychiatrists does criminal competency evaluations. Every now and again there's an "exciting" case involved, but mostly she's seeing people charged with destruction of property, criminal trespass, maybe rarely terroristic threats or assault.

[DanaC]

Wolf, in your opinion, do you think the 0.26% success rate on 0.85% cases where an insanity defense is attempted, is about right, or too low? Do you think it under-reflects the role insanity plays in crime?

[wolf]

I think it is correct.

Severely mentally ill people mainly do have the ability to determine right from wrong, and to assist in their own defense.

Public perception plays a big part in most people's understanding of the Insanity Defense. Many people believe what they see on TV, that crazy people are scary and more dangerous than the general population (nope, they aren't, they're actually less likely to be dangerous, and on top of that, they are more likely to be victims of crimes).

More jurisdictions do need the option of Guilty but Mentally Ill. That puts the individual in prison, but also recognizes their need for treatment.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by wolf

More jurisdictions do need the option of Guilty but Mentally Ill. That puts the individual in prison, but also recognizes their need for treatment.

That makes sense. I've been wonderng about it, because I'd read elsewhere that people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators, but that wasn't gelling with the apparently high number of convicted criminals with severe mental illness.

[DanaC]

Oh come on! That's not fair. Of course he has a .....oh sorry, you said peers...