fandomhigh | Great Trials in History, Class #4, Period 5 (7-29)

Alex was somewhat distracted by her concerns about her client, still locked up in Gotham City, and the upcoming trial. That was, however, no excuse not to teach a full, competent class.

She did let it influence her selection of topic, however.

"Daniel M'Naghten," she began, "believed that a political group known as the Tories were persecuting him. He told this to friends, relatives, and local police officers, all of whom thought that he was suffering from delusions. As a matter of fact, he was. Unfortunately, this didn't stop him from drawing a pistol and firing at the Prime Minister's personal secretary, who died five days later."

Amazing that none of M'Naghten's friends or loved ones had confiscated his weapons.

"At trial, the defense showed that M'Naghten was severely mentally ill. They produced several witnesses to testify about the delusions that he had raved about, including, again, the police officers with whom he had lodged formal complaints. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity, and Daniel M'Naghten spent the rest of his life in an asylum.

"Public outrage was immediate, and furious. It always is, with insanity cases; the general public sees the defendant as 'getting away' with murder, and assumes that he or she is pretending insanity to escape culpability. As a result of the outcry, the British government tightened up its rules about insanity defense, coming up with the M'Naghten Rules, which essentially said that insanity, legally, would be defined as the inability to know right from wrong, or to understand that one's actions were wrong." She smiled, a touch wryly. "Since M'Naghten would have been convicted under those rules, the name is a touch ironic."

Legal precedents were strange things, at times.

"The rules eased up over the next century, but when a man named John Hinckley shot at the United States President, and was acquitted because of his own mental illness, public outcry once again lead to stricter rules about the insanity defense. The media sensationalizes these cases, which means the average citizen thinks that the insanity defense is common. It isn't, and fails far more than it succeeds."

Alex lifted her tea from her desk for a much-needed sip. "At what point is a person not legally or morally responsible for his or her actions, because of insanity? How do we reconcile the legal definition of sanity with the psychiatric approach to mental health? How can a government ensure that legitimately ill people are not punished, but clever criminals don't abuse the resulting loophole? Are there degrees of culpability at work? That's today's topic."

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Like you crazy, bb.

Write notes. Pass notes. Try not to be crazy.

There is no psychiatric definition for 'insanity' -- only various illnesses and the treatments for them. What ailments should (or shouldn't) count as 'insane' for legal purposes? If a person chooses to stop taking medication, then becomes delusional and commits a crime, is the person responsible for the crime since they chose to cease the medication? Does it matter why the person made that decision (crippling side effects, or an inability to pay)?

Once a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, what actions (if any) should the government take? If the person is then placed in psychiatric care, what conditions should be met for his or her eventual release, or should release not be possible? Do you feel the legal defense of insanity is too strict, too lenient, or something inbetween?

She's thinking about Paula Varney, pleading with her not to pursue the death penalty against her husband.

Sorry this is a smidge late. It's a tired day.

Jonothon Starsmore

Squall Leonhart

"A person would need to be able to tell right from wrong to really be guilty of anything," Squall mused. "But that won't stop people from prosecuting if they really want to."

"What do you mean 'if any'?" Squall asked, confused. "If a person is that crazy, they need to be locked up until they're cured."

"I don't think most prosecutors enjoy putting someone who is insane in jail," Alex said playfully. "So let's take that as a given. Right and wrong. What about someone who knows right from wrong, but believes a higher power has directly instructed them to kill innocent people?"

She hastened to add, "Assume, also as a given, that this person is provably psychotic in some manner -- not just inventing voices to escape criminal charges."

Edited 2010-07-30 01:24 (UTC)

"What if there is no cure?" Alex asked. "Should this be a mental hospital, or an asylum for the criminally insane?"

Bruce Wayne

Squall shrugged. "Let the shrinks work out the details. The point is, punishment is going to be pointless, so you need to focus on keeping them from hurting people."

"That's no different than someone who knows right from wrong but actually had a higher power tell them to kill people," Squall answered. "Maybe it's a mitigating circumstance, but you still jail the person."

As Bruce took notes, he had no idea just how severely the ideas that insanity cases were rare and prone to failure would prove false in his future.

Seriously.

Great Trials in History, Class #4, Period 5 (7-29)

Sign In - TRI04

During the Lecture - TRI04

Discussion #1: Defining Insanity - TRI04

Discussion #2: Legal Repercussions - TRI04

Talk to Alex - TRI04

OOC - TRI04

Re: Sign In - TRI04

Re: Sign In - TRI04

Re: Discussion #1: Defining Insanity - TRI04

Re: Discussion #2: Legal Repercussions - TRI04

Re: Discussion #1: Defining Insanity - TRI04

Re: Discussion #2: Legal Repercussions - TRI04

Re: Sign In - TRI04

Re: Discussion #2: Legal Repercussions - TRI04

Re: Discussion #1: Defining Insanity - TRI04

Re: During the Lecture - TRI04