Thread: getting away with murder

I guess you just have to be either completely deranged or uber-rich to get away with it.

No jail for man in bus beheading - Americas- msnbc.com

I understand the insanity defense, but the world would probably be better off without him in it.

What is the standard in Canada for not guilty by reason of insanity?

Matt

How does being mentally ill absolve one from criminal responsibility?

Anyway, this remark makes me think that the more violent the crime, the less likely prison becomes:

Justice John Scurfield said Li's attack was "grotesque" and "barbaric" but "strongly suggestive of a mental disorder."

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

How does being mentally ill absolve one from criminal responsibility?

Anyway, this remark makes me think that the more violent the crime, the less likely prison becomes:

Manson, Bundy, Son of Sam, Hillside Strangler, etc all received jail time.

The basically recognizes that if a person is UNABLE to know right from wrong at the INSTANT the crime is committed. He/She may be able to get away with a nut ball defense.

Crimes of Passion are the perfect example. A perfectly normal and reasonable guy comes home from work and finds his best friend in bed with his wife. He jumps on the bed and thrashes him to death. At the moment he engaged his friend, he may not have realized that his actions would result in the death of the other party. Hence, temporary insanity defenses.

Google Twinkie Defense if you want to get a twisted defense tactic.

Funny you mention the twinkie defense. In the current movie "Milk" about slain civil rights activist and politician Harvey Milk, the murderer was the person in whose trial that defense was first used (and the slang term coined). His lawyers claimed that his junkfood diet caused imbalances that led (or at least helped bring about) his crimes. I do not recall how succesful it was, nor if the defense led to the rather light conviction and punishment. I thik he did four years or something, and was found guilty of the lowest possible level of crime. I believe it was manslaughter, but I can't quite remember.

I'm fine with ill people being locked up in a medical institution instead of going to jail. But here's the problem:

He will be institutionalized without a criminal record and will be reassessed every year by a mental health review board to determine if he is fit for release into the community.

How do you prove it is safe to let this person back into the community? You can't. Not unless you can do blood tests and show some chemical/hormonal imbalance at the time of the killing, and can explain the cause and demonstrate it is fixed somehow. That isn't going to happen in this case.

What's going to happen is this guy will spend some time held securely, and if he holds back from killing someone else in the meantime he will eventually be released.

This happens all the time and freed killers go on to kill again. I don't think that is in the public interest.

I find it amazing that dogs who bite people (and are just behaving as dogs are supposed to behave) are put down, while people who are such an obvious threat are treated with kid gloves.

It's almost like here in Indiana, a few months ago a teenage driver was "distracted" struck and killed a sherriff's deputy and they refused to charge her with anything. While admittedly it was a preventable accident and kind of sends a message to drivers.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I find it amazing that dogs who bite people (and are just behaving as dogs are supposed to behave) are put down, while people who are such an obvious threat are treated with kid gloves.

Not where I live

Originally Posted by singlewedge

Manson, Bundy, Son of Sam, Hillside Strangler, etc all received jail time.

The basically recognizes that if a person is UNABLE to know right from wrong at the INSTANT the crime is committed. He/She may be able to get away with a nut ball defense.

Crimes of Passion are the perfect example. A perfectly normal and reasonable guy comes home from work and finds his best friend in bed with his wife. He jumps on the bed and thrashes him to death. At the moment he engaged his friend, he may not have realized that his actions would result in the death of the other party. Hence, temporary insanity defenses.

Google Twinkie Defense if you want to get a twisted defense tactic.

Is this the Canadian standard?

the example you give is more along the lines of 2nd degree murder, rather than first. Insanity is not a crime of passion (at least not where I live).

Here in the US the insanity defense rarely succeeds (unless its not challenged to begin with). The percent of jury acquittals based on the defense is very low. Most juries don't like it, hence they have to be presented with really compelling evidence to agree to acquit.

I don't have a problem with the defense in principle. The idea being we don't hold people who are incapable of morally comprehending what they're doing morally responsible for what they do.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

How does being mentally ill absolve one from criminal responsibility?

Except it isn't a mental illness defense, it is an insanity defense. Reading billyjeff2's post caused me to realize I erred in my association