April 20, 2006
NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS:
Supreme Court to Review Insanity Defense (Charles Lane, April 20, 2006, Washington Post)
The Supreme Court embarked on a potentially far-reaching review of the insanity defense yesterday, as the justices heard oral arguments in the case of an Arizona man, Eric Michael Clark, who was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time he shot a police officer to death.At issue in the case is whether Arizona's version of the insanity defense, which requires defendants to prove with "clear and convincing" evidence that they were too mentally ill to understand that their conduct was wrong, is so narrow that it violates the constitutional right to due process of law. [...]
The state is backed by the Bush administration, which argues that, although the federal insanity defense law is more broadly worded than Arizona's, Congress's discretion might be limited by a ruling in favor of Arizona. A brief from 16 states also supports Arizona, arguing that a broad ruling in Clark's favor "will call into serious question the validity of the majority of state insanity statutes."
Although the insanity defense has deep roots in English common law, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Constitution requires it.
In other words, the Constitution manifestly doesn't require it, though the Court might legislate it. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 20, 2006 12:24 PM
I don't care if people are insane, or incapacitated due to intoxication, when they commit crimes.
Lock 'em up.
If the state wants to provide them with treatment while they're in prison, that would be good.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 20, 2006 12:48 PM
In other words, it's a state issue. If it's a state law with a history it could not be considered a due process or cruel and unusual question. One might like to think, anyway.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 20, 2006 1:01 PMNo. The acts of one who does not understand their nature and quality are not human acts to which guilt and criminal responsibility may attach, but rather acts of man, such as sneezing. In essence, the act has happened to the doer as agent, rather than by him, as actor.
The problem is that with the degredation on education to mere technical training, semi-literate churls drilled in some trade imagine that they are competent to ponder such distinctions.
The failure of education is compounded by weak and venal courts who abnegate their responsibility to guide the applications of the insanity defense. Add to the equation the ministrations of legislatures composed of semi-literate churls, elected by the semi- and non-liteate, and the ruin is total.
The rule in M'Naughten's case remains a reasonable answer to the dangerous acts performed by by those whose minds are so diseased that they did not will to commit a crime. We do not excuse the crime because we condone it, we excuse the agent of the act, who is no more blameworthy than a dangerous animal.
But what about expediency, we might ask, do we not put down the dangerous beast? Just so, but we do not blame it. Justice, you see, is not the same as expediency. The dangerously insane may be confined indefinitely without being blamed.
That the distinction escapes some strongly confirms the continuing failure of education.
"...which requires defendants to prove with "clear and convincing" evidence that they were too mentally ill to understand that their conduct was wrong..."
So the Supreme Court might modify this law to allow unclear and unconvincing evidence?
Posted by: Brandon at April 20, 2006 3:12 PMWhile the Constitution doesn't mandate an insanity defense, that defense is inevitable if one's laws have a mens rea component.
Posted by: sharon at April 20, 2006 6:59 PMWhile the Constitution doesn't mandate an insanity defense, that defense is inevitable if one's laws have a mens rea component.
Posted by: sharon at April 20, 2006 7:00 PMThe dangerously insane may be confined indefinitely without being blamed.
That's the crux of the problem - I have no confidence whatsoever that the dangerously insane will be confined indefinitely, if the medical system controls their confinement.
In fact, it's easy to come up with dozens of examples of dangerously insane people being released after a few years, because their problems can be controlled by medication, so they're "no longer a danger".
Of course, some of them just stop taking their medication, and kill again.
If they're in prison, they can be forced to take their medication.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 20, 2006 7:36 PM
The insanity defense is not contained by the mens rea requirement.
For example, David Berkowitz had the required mens rea even though he may have been insane.
Posted by: Pepys at April 20, 2006 9:15 PMEgads, you are correct. Mea culpa.
Posted by: sharon at April 20, 2006 11:14 PMMichael, You are sooooooooo right. The guilty, no matter their state of mind, should be incarcerated or executed depending on the seriousness of the crime. Mental defectives cannot be institutionalized because the bleeding hearts will do everything they can to release them back into society to repeat their crimes.
Just last night, I heard one of them say on TV that sexual predators shouldn't be hounded or have their past revealed. They should be allowed to go on with their lives once they've paid their debt to society and been released from prison.