WHO SHOULD DECIDE IF A DEFENDANT IS MAD? (26)
I don't know as I understand that there is a difference between the legal definition of insanity and the medical definition. Or perhaps I've been watching too much Law and Order SVU. 
------ This poll is Archived ------
Godsgift: I don't know as I understand that there is a difference between the legal definition of insanity and the medical definition. Or perhaps I've been watching too much Law and Order SVU.
You're right GD. "Mad" is not a legal or medical term.
------ This poll is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: And another question is what to do with the accused: jail or hospital? or both...
Quite obviously, only a psychiatrist is qualified to decide whether or not someone is insane.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Carl96190: Quite obviously, only a psychiatrist is qualified to decide whether or not someone is insane.
Not so obvious. Carefully read the above comments and you will notice that the laws does not define well what is the legal concept of insanity neither what should be the consequence in terms of justice. Someone who believes that everyone are his enemies and try to defend from themselves? someone who believes that killing is fun? someone who "hears voices" and feel the urge to kill? how to know if he really thinks so? Of course at a University of Medicine does not teach students the legal definition of insanity, but neither at the Universities of law.
------ This poll is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: Not so obvious. Carefully read the above comments and you will notice that the laws does not define well what is the legal concept of insanity neither what should be the consequence in terms of justice. Someone who believes that everyone are his enemies and try to defend from themselves? someone who believes that killing is fun? someone who "hears voices" and feel the urge to kill? how to know if he really thinks so? Of course at a University of Medicine does not teach students the legal definition of insanity, but neither at the Universities of law.
You're wasting you time trying to educate someone who thinks he knows everything and as such can never learn anything.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
Herbert Spencer
------ This poll is Archived ------
I think we as humans mostly believe that to commit a heinous crime we must be crazy!
and so the laws wrap their procedures and beliefs system to support this concept. It is difficult to believe that some people are just truly angry enough and have a depraved indifference to human life.
and so the laws wrap their procedures and beliefs system to support this concept. It is difficult to believe that some people are just truly angry enough and have a depraved indifference to human life.
------ This poll is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: And another question is what to do with the accused: jail or hospital? or both...
Too much could be justified by a psychiatrist and this would have harmful repurcussions for society. I believe the jury should decide who is mad in accordance with the social definition of madness because society's laws are there to protect society and look after the rights of victims, they are not there to be medically/scientifically fixated to the point where you end up justifying criminal acts - which is where psychiatry is going... and Doctor's are not exactly known for being efficient and practical, two qualities you need in respect of the law.
I'd like to see them receiving treatment in a prison if resources would allow. However, they would be low priority to me, there's much better causes than them to help right now.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: Too much could be justified by a psychiatrist and this would have harmful repurcussions for society. I believe the jury should decide who is mad in accordance with the social definition of madness because society's laws are there to protect society and look after the rights of victims, they are not there to be medically/scientifically fixated to the point where you end up justifying criminal acts - which is where psychiatry is going... and Doctor's are not exactly known for being efficient and practical, two qualities you need in respect of the law.
I'd like to see them receiving treatment in a prison if resources would allow. However, they would be low priority to me, there's much better causes than them to help right now.
I'd like to see them receiving treatment in a prison if resources would allow. However, they would be low priority to me, there's much better causes than them to help right now.
The jury does make the decision of guilty or not guilty based on the evidence AND the testimony of a psychiatrist. A jury of peers is not qualified to made a judgment on how a person acts because their emotions come into play.
Case in point: The shooting in Colorado. The murderer sat in court (no jury) acting like he didn't know what was going on. He tried to make it look like he was falling asleep and at times opened his eyes very wide. He wanted the judge to think he was insane.
BUT, right before he was taken to the courtroom, he was very active fighting with the officers and spitting on them. Two different body languages going on.
If a jury saw him in the courtroom they might think he was insance. If they saw him before he was taken to the courtroom they would say guilty and because of the horrific slaughter of all those people, their sentencing would probably be the death penalty.
A psychiatrist can see through his acting and testify if he believes he is insance. A lay person cannot make the decision if a person is sane.
------ This poll is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: And another question is what to do with the accused: jail or hospital? or both...
Well obviously the mental health professional would determine if they are ' mad '
Then the judge would make the decision based on the reports from the psychiatrist etc
------ This poll is Archived ------
Maybe the victims?...................
------ This poll is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: Not so obvious. Carefully read the above comments and you will notice that the laws does not define well what is the legal concept of insanity neither what should be the consequence in terms of justice. Someone who believes that everyone are his enemies and try to defend from themselves? someone who believes that killing is fun? someone who "hears voices" and feel the urge to kill? how to know if he really thinks so? Of course at a University of Medicine does not teach students the legal definition of insanity, but neither at the Universities of law.
I think only another guy who killed people is qualified to do determine this. The hell with those who study the mind and how it works, better to have others who hear voices determine if another who hears voices is sane or not.
In the end, we'll have quicker executions or at least faster trials.
------ This poll is Archived ------
JeanKimberley: I think we as humans mostly believe that to commit a heinous crime we must be crazy!
and so the laws wrap their procedures and beliefs system to support this concept. It is difficult to believe that some people are just truly angry enough and have a depraved indifference to human life.
and so the laws wrap their procedures and beliefs system to support this concept. It is difficult to believe that some people are just truly angry enough and have a depraved indifference to human life.
yes whether the individual presents a threat of harm to the self - others - or society at large is a legal consideration that can also become a medical one. But in terms of protecting society which is the job of the law - threat of harm is important in these types of evaluations and decisions
the medical experts can certainly find someone personality disordered or even psychotic but if they present no threat of harm the law isn't going to be as concerned (and such a person probably has not committed a crime anyway)
------ This poll is Archived ------
montemonte: The jury does make the decision of guilty or not guilty based on the evidence AND the testimony of a psychiatrist. A jury of peers is not qualified to made a judgment on how a person acts because their emotions come into play.
Case in point: The shooting in Colorado. The murderer sat in court (no jury) acting like he didn't know what was going on. He tried to make it look like he was falling asleep and at times opened his eyes very wide. He wanted the judge to think he was insane.
BUT, right before he was taken to the courtroom, he was very active fighting with the officers and spitting on them. Two different body languages going on.
If a jury saw him in the courtroom they might think he was insance. If they saw him before he was taken to the courtroom they would say guilty and because of the horrific slaughter of all those people, their sentencing would probably be the death penalty.
A psychiatrist can see through his acting and testify if he believes he is insance. A lay person cannot make the decision if a person is sane.
Case in point: The shooting in Colorado. The murderer sat in court (no jury) acting like he didn't know what was going on. He tried to make it look like he was falling asleep and at times opened his eyes very wide. He wanted the judge to think he was insane.
BUT, right before he was taken to the courtroom, he was very active fighting with the officers and spitting on them. Two different body languages going on.
If a jury saw him in the courtroom they might think he was insance. If they saw him before he was taken to the courtroom they would say guilty and because of the horrific slaughter of all those people, their sentencing would probably be the death penalty.
A psychiatrist can see through his acting and testify if he believes he is insance. A lay person cannot make the decision if a person is sane.
good post Monte, yes, a lay person can refer though - a teacher or nurse for example can suggest that someone may benefit from evaluation. When I read the news I often wonder if lay professional like teachers & social workers are doing enough to refer troubled individuals.
Lay people - family friends neighbors co workers are the last people who can make these types of decisions because often they have their own (often selfish)agenda and the courts realize this - therefore are supposed to only accept expert testimony.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Carl96190: Quite obviously, only a psychiatrist is qualified to decide whether or not someone is insane.
Spot on, Sir!
------ This poll is Archived ------
tip-toe!
------ This poll is Archived ------
montemonte: You would want that because people are emotionally affected when a child is moldested and rightly so, but you can't bring emotions into the courtroom.
A defendant has the right to have representation by a legal official, that includes expert testimony.
If you broke the law you would want the best lawyer you could get. That lawyer would get the best experts and would present the best evidence for your case. You swear that you aren't guilty and for the sake of this post, you aren't guilty, but it doesn't matter because the jury is going to make the decision if you are guilty.
In your belief, the defendant doesn't deserve a jury and should be "shot" because the public believes you did it, not the jury. They think you are guilty because you look guilty.
If you have a past history of being a child molester the attorneys cannot bring that into the case. It's what is called "opening the door" and everything you have done can be brought into the case. You just hope your attorney doesn't slip up.)
So the public convicts you to their way of thinking and you are sent to prision, or shot, when you actually aren't guilty.
Do you see how a jury of peers could save you?
A defendant has the right to have representation by a legal official, that includes expert testimony.
If you broke the law you would want the best lawyer you could get. That lawyer would get the best experts and would present the best evidence for your case. You swear that you aren't guilty and for the sake of this post, you aren't guilty, but it doesn't matter because the jury is going to make the decision if you are guilty.
In your belief, the defendant doesn't deserve a jury and should be "shot" because the public believes you did it, not the jury. They think you are guilty because you look guilty.
If you have a past history of being a child molester the attorneys cannot bring that into the case. It's what is called "opening the door" and everything you have done can be brought into the case. You just hope your attorney doesn't slip up.)
So the public convicts you to their way of thinking and you are sent to prision, or shot, when you actually aren't guilty.
Do you see how a jury of peers could save you?
I do want a jury, the jury are of the public.
My point isn't about establishing guilt, i'm talking about the actions taken once guilt has been ascertained. What emotions shouldn't do, as you say, is predetermine a person's guilt.
But I would say that emotion should factor into sentencing, because essentially it is from emotion that we understand crime.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: I do want a jury, the jury are of the public.
My point isn't about establishing guilt, i'm talking about the actions taken once guilt has been ascertained. What emotions shouldn't do, as you say, is predetermine a person's guilt.
But I would say that emotion should factor into sentencing, because essentially it is from emotion that we understand crime.
My point isn't about establishing guilt, i'm talking about the actions taken once guilt has been ascertained. What emotions shouldn't do, as you say, is predetermine a person's guilt.
But I would say that emotion should factor into sentencing, because essentially it is from emotion that we understand crime.
I'm confused. I gather from this post that you want a real jury (not the public) to establish guilt or innocence. And once the jury says guilty, you believe the public should determine what the sentence should be.
But what if the jury says not guilty and the public still says guilty, what do you do then?
We had a case in Florida not to long ago when a jury said that a mother was found not guilty of killing her daughter. Jurors were interviewed and they said the prosecutor didn't produce enough evidence to prove her guilt. The whole state of Florida and I would dare say all of America believes she is guilty of her daughter's death and they wanted to "hang" her but she walked out of the prison a free woman. THAT is supposed to be the end of it but to this day, Casey Anthony is still considered guilty in the eyes of America.
When a jury takes the facts and evidence into consideration they are expected to make their judgment on that, not because they feel sad. It's very hard to do that but people have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and have gone to prison only to be found not guilty many years later. Wouldn't it be sad if the public took it into their own hands to kill someone if that person isn't truly guilty.
I know our countries have different laws. But there is one thing we have in common and that is justice for the innocent and judgement for the guilty by a law abiding jury...
Nice chatting with you Rumpy...
------ This poll is Archived ------
montemonte: I'm confused. I gather from this post that you want a real jury (not the public) to establish guilt or innocence. And once the jury says guilty, you believe the public should determine what the sentence should be.
But what if the jury says not guilty and the public still says guilty, what do you do then?
We had a case in Florida not to long ago when a jury said that a mother was found not guilty of killing her daughter. Jurors were interviewed and they said the prosecutor didn't produce enough evidence to prove her guilt. The whole state of Florida and I would dare say all of America believes she is guilty of her daughter's death and they wanted to "hang" her but she walked out of the prison a free woman. THAT is supposed to be the end of it but to this day, Casey Anthony is still considered guilty in the eyes of America.
When a jury takes the facts and evidence into consideration they are expected to make their judgment on that, not because they feel sad. It's very hard to do that but people have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and have gone to prison only to be found not guilty many years later. Wouldn't it be sad if the public took it into their own hands to kill someone if that person isn't truly guilty.
I know our countries have different laws. But there is one thing we have in common and that is justice for the innocent and judgement for the guilty by a law abiding jury...
Nice chatting with you Rumpy...
But what if the jury says not guilty and the public still says guilty, what do you do then?
We had a case in Florida not to long ago when a jury said that a mother was found not guilty of killing her daughter. Jurors were interviewed and they said the prosecutor didn't produce enough evidence to prove her guilt. The whole state of Florida and I would dare say all of America believes she is guilty of her daughter's death and they wanted to "hang" her but she walked out of the prison a free woman. THAT is supposed to be the end of it but to this day, Casey Anthony is still considered guilty in the eyes of America.
When a jury takes the facts and evidence into consideration they are expected to make their judgment on that, not because they feel sad. It's very hard to do that but people have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and have gone to prison only to be found not guilty many years later. Wouldn't it be sad if the public took it into their own hands to kill someone if that person isn't truly guilty.
I know our countries have different laws. But there is one thing we have in common and that is justice for the innocent and judgement for the guilty by a law abiding jury...
Nice chatting with you Rumpy...
The jury are members of the public informed on the details of the case, i'm not talking about the general public. The Man on the streets opinion is not important to the trial.
I'm arguing for what types of people should essentially govern our laws and how we interpret things. If the law considered insanity and mental illness in the same terms as medicine does then many crimes, many horrendous crimes, could be deemed excusable. If the intellectuals of medicine have their way we will live in a society where nobody is accountable for their own actions.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Godsgift: I don't know as I understand that there is a difference between the legal definition of insanity and the medical definition. Or perhaps I've been watching too much Law and Order SVU.
Yes, its true... However, its the phsychiatrist or a team of them that are qualified to make an official statement.
------ This poll is Archived ------
loveubabe95: Yes, its true... However, its the phsychiatrist or a team of them that are qualified to make an official statement.
It's odd though. Many terms we use today as insults regarding someone's mental capacity are actually legal terms.
Follow: Join the Word of the Day Mailing List
IDIOT: Persons. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any.
Imbecile, IMBECILITY: A weakness of the mind, caused by the absence or obliteration of natural or acquired ideas; or it is described to be an abnormal deficiency either in those faculties which acquaint us with the qualities and ordinary relations of things, or in those which furnish us with the moral motives that regulate our relations and conduct towards our fellow men. It is frequently attended with excessive activity. of one or more of the animal propensities
There are many many more.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Everyone should be declared insane by default. 
It would just be more realistic if it was decided after careful research and deliberation, whether someone can actually be considered sane. There are only very few of those people in this world.
It would just be more realistic if it was decided after careful research and deliberation, whether someone can actually be considered sane. There are only very few of those people in this world.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Susanne1: Everyone should be declared insane by default.
It would just be more realistic if it was decided after careful research and deliberation, whether someone can actually be considered sane. There are only very few of those people in this world.
It would just be more realistic if it was decided after careful research and deliberation, whether someone can actually be considered sane. There are only very few of those people in this world.
Let the defendant prove their own insanity..or sanity in front of a panel of like minded individuals. Trails have entertainment value and this method would certainly be entertaining at the very least. Also, an additional charge could be laid for conspiracy to appear sane or insane...everyone loves a conspiracy...be it by several or just within the mind of a single individual
------ This poll is Archived ------
JeanKimberley: I think we as humans mostly believe that to commit a heinous crime we must be crazy!
and so the laws wrap their procedures and beliefs system to support this concept. It is difficult to believe that some people are just truly angry enough and have a depraved indifference to human life.
and so the laws wrap their procedures and beliefs system to support this concept. It is difficult to believe that some people are just truly angry enough and have a depraved indifference to human life.
I don't believe most heinous crimes are committed by people who are insane, I reckon there are those who are pure evil and both should be treated differently.
As to who should decide on whether one is insane or not legally,
I believe that is the job of the judge, he can receive psychiatric reports
from the professionals and take on board their advice, but the final decision should lie with the judge.
Insanity is an illness, therefore should be treated in a suitable hospital, as with evil, lock tham up in jail and throw away the key.
------ This poll is Archived ------
I think if he is sitting there looking like this 
he is dang ticked off!! 
he is dang ticked off!! ------ This poll is Archived ------
granuaile: I don't believe most heinous crimes are committed by people who are insane, I reckon there are those who are pure evil and both should be treated differently.
As to who should decide on whether one is insane or not legally,
I believe that is the job of the judge, he can receive psychiatric reports
from the professionals and take on board their advice, but the final decision should lie with the judge.
Insanity is an illness, therefore should be treated in a suitable hospital, as with evil, lock tham up in jail and throw away the key.
As to who should decide on whether one is insane or not legally,
I believe that is the job of the judge, he can receive psychiatric reports
from the professionals and take on board their advice, but the final decision should lie with the judge.
Insanity is an illness, therefore should be treated in a suitable hospital, as with evil, lock tham up in jail and throw away the key.
Why should the public suffer to pay their taxes to house, feed clothes and sustain the life of such an individual?! That is ludicrous.
There are many islands around this planet that these types could be forever exiled to and then leave them to rot along with others like them. Lots of warm islands and lots of uninhabited islands within the arctic circle...a good place for them or use an island that someone's Navy uses for target practice...
------ This poll is Archived ------
This Poll is Archived
This Poll is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Poll get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
More Threads
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
Kultur-multur
Ladies
The weird and the random facts around the world
men's perspective towards women
your favorite topic?
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
the way you look
wanting beyond need
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Stats for this Poll
49 Votes
1,808 Views
26 Comments
Created: Jul 2012
Last Viewed: Apr 26
Last Commented: Jul 2012
Last Voted: Jul 2017
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- Kultur-multur
- Ladies
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- men's perspective towards women
- your favorite topic?
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- the way you look
- wanting beyond need
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
WHO SHOULD DECIDE IF A DEFENDANT IS MAD?(Vote Below)