those who are deemed "unfit to stand trial due to insanity" adequately address their illness?
107383
Sorry no.  Unfit for trial also means that you will be sent to a mental hospital until your a restore to normal and then you are tried.  You basically have to be insane forever to avoid the charges.  Not worth the time.
151168
I don't think mental illness will ever be cured as most people won't admit they have a problem.\n\nK
871660
If you are talking about an innate knowledge of doing right and wrong the answer is that not everyone does.  Certain mental illness lack the characteristic, people with damaged brain function because of an injury etc.  Perhaps you need do define "conscience."
976678
Have you ever seen the prisoner section of a mental hospital or the hospital section of a prison?  Neither is a nice place.  And how much rehabilitation can someone have if they are out of contact with the world and/or themselves.\n\nFor concepts of justice, yes, there should be an insanity defense.  For making criminal prosecution easier, perhaps not.  \n\nIt might be an eye opening encounter if you see how few people get out of criminal charges through an insanity plea..  Get in touch with your local criminal prosecutor`s office.
938190
It really depends on the seriousness of the crime and if the person really did INTENTIONALLY commit the crime, or if it was a result of their uncontrollable symptoms.\n\nI can tell you first hand though, that many mentally ill people 'know' the system and know how to use it to their advantage. Just because someone is mentally ill, doesn't mean their stupid! \n\nI have seen it time and time again, individuals committing crimes, and they proclaiming they couldn't help it, and getting away with it, over and over. In quite a few of these cases, I think the person SHOULD be put in jail for a while, so they can learn that there are still consequences for these behaviors. How are they going to learn about consequences otherwise? If I never got in trouble for doing illegal things, I'd probably be out doing them too.
680052
Pro..A person can not be held responsible for their actions if they are so menatlly disturbed that they don't even know right from wrong and have no grasp on reality.With that said, I do believe that it is time to start putting people who have such serious mental disorders back in institutions.In California, among many states, the policy is to only hold a very small number of disturbed people.There are thousands, state wide, of people who have no business wondering the streets.They are a danger to themsleves and to everyone around them.But I do think that the guidelines for determing who is insane should be very stiff.And in most cases they are anyway.
18176
Hi,\nThe first part of your question requires a legal answer. Only courts can rule a person to be insane. However, people who are currently using meth frequently are a danger to themselves or others. This is a powerful drug that alters the mental state of the user in addition to being highly addictive. Please seek immediate professional help for your friend. Good luck.
1056715
NO!\n\nA mentally ill, mentally disturbed, or mentally handicapped person should be treated no differently than the rest of us, if they are a criminal.\n\nHere's why:\nA murderer kills a bunch of people, including little children. His lawyer says he is mentally unstable. He does not get the maximum sentence, in fact the judge orders him into a psychiatric ward instead of prison. Then, another person kills a bunch of people, and his lawyer isn't smart enough to use the "insanity" loophole. He gets the death penalty.\nHow is this a fair, consistent, just system?\nHere's another little tidbit for your brain to chew on:\n\nIsn't EVERY serial murderer, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY rapist, by definition, insane?\nIsn't EVERY armed robber, terrorist, or assassin, by definition, unstable?\n\nEvery immoral criminal act is a sign of psychotic or sociopathic tendencies. So, why have prisons? Why not release everyone with a doctor's note? Execute all the murderers, retarded, insane, underage, you name it. Make the system fair. There's no reason why one murderer should be executed while another one goes free on a bullsh*t technicality.\n\n"But, I don't know the difference between right and wrong!"\nSo? How does that excuse you from consequences?\nDOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU EVEN MORE A DANGER TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS??? HOW IS THAT A GOOD THING?\nBeing ignorant does not make you innocent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's what the law says. It should apply equally to everyone.\n\nWhat do you do with a dog that doesn't know better than to viciously attack humans? You put them down. That's all there is to it. Save the innocent, punish the guilty.
779577
Yes very much so. Apparently people are not reasonable enough to handle have this privilege. Sometimes one bad irresponsible person ruins it for all.
924233
I believe that it would be a huge injustice if a truly mentally ill person was put into a prison with sane people but i do not belive they should get off easier than any other human being. But to answer your question it would be horible if it couldn't be used in court because you have to have a way to seperate the crazies from the assholes. I believe if it passes it would be unconstitional be cause it would infringe on the right to a fair trial.
737167
mental patients should be able to determine there care to some degree.  if they have severe problems (going to harm themselves or others)that choice should be taken away from them. but always yes to a lawyer or advocate. believe it or not there is allot of abuse in hospitals and group homes, they think who would believe a mental patient, i can do what i want.
526411
Dear Friend,\n\nThese would include:\n*Infants (persons under, generally, 16)\n*So-called "idiots" (mentally-challenged persons) and the insane\n*Women\n*Slaves and prisoners\n\nYours in Him,\nFranceois
753383
Legally, insanity is  a measure of whether you knew something was right or wrong at the time. Yours is a philosophical question, not a legal one. You could argue that no-one in their right  mind would deliberately take the life of another; but that doesn't protect them in law, unless they didn't understand that doing so was wrong.
173689
I would act normally around her concerning this self inflicted disease, she already is in a confused mental state so love and trust would be my sustenance for her.\nShe needs to see a doctor as soon as possible and the medical authourities will help her BUT she has to want to be helped.
26264
Yeah, I agree with what someone else said in a previous comment....If you're able to question rather or not you're crazy, chances are - You're Not!...Unfortunately, I had grown up around people that were mentally ill. (my Grandmother, & a cousin) who has been in & out of mental wards all their life...They didn't know they were ill, nor did they know what they were doing, saying, etc...
791774
There are a lot of issues in this situation. For example, there are crimes for which a 'free pass' is given in this society. Vehicular homicide by senior citizens is one (they even sue the car manufacturers for faulty brakes and/or gas pedals) and killing one's children due to insanity is another. \n\nEver since the story of Abraham hearing voices (from God?) in his head telling him to kill his son Isaac, we've been acculturated to allow people to rejoin society as normal after a period of mental health treatment.\n\nMaybe the real question is "Should mental health professionals be allowed to declare people 'cured' when heinous crimes have been committed?"\n\nI think if we could all acknowledge that the bible story relates a tale of schizophrenia described in a primitive fashion and that child murder, even by parents, results in guilty but insane verdicts, then we'd all be better off.
909801
It's unclear what you are actually asking.\n\nIf you are trying to find out whether psychological evidence may be considered, that's a question of law for the judge. The side who wants to admit the evidence can make a motion in limine to get the judge to allow it. Or the side who wants to exclude the evidence can make a motion in limine to get the judge to refuse to allow it.\n\nAs far as whether that will make a difference in the outcome of the case, that's an entirely separate question -- and the answer is almost impossible to predict. Too many variables.\n\nMental observation is not generally a defense. Diminished capacity (mental problems) is rarely a defense. Mental disease or defect is occasionally a defense. It all depends on the laws of the state/country in question.\n\nStart with asking the judge whether evidence of mental problems can be presented. That will provide much of the answer you are looking for.