jj (07/12/82)
The problem that concerns me about the Hinkley episode more than anything else is that a completely RATIONAL person, who wanted to do what Hinkley did for some strange reason<I am leaving the motive out of this, for reasons that will become evident>, could easily hit upon the exact route of escape that Hinkley used. If a sane man did not want to go to jail, it is entirely likely that that man would be willing to have his sanity questioned. It is also likely that that person would encourage exactly that. I do not claim that this occurred in the Hinkley case, but I can see no reason why a sane person, or a nearly sane person(don't even bother to write me about "nearly sane") would not, given that the deed has been committed, provide as much evidence for insanity as could be provided under the circumstances. To do otherwise would not be "sane". I grant that the insane would do exactly the same thing, but not by intent. The question raised is thus, "By what method can society prevent a sane, but ill intending, person from using the insanity defense to that person's aid, while still maintaining a haven for the truly ill?" I do not intend to argue the question of ill intent as related to sanity, as the result of defining ill intent as insanity is to ascribe all crime to insanity. A discussion of the purpose of detention is another interesting issue, to wit: "Is the purpose of detention to punish, or to protect society?" The corollaries are infinite. I realize that these questions have been asked before, however I am attempting to steer this discussion toward the discovery of solutions, and away from commentary for its own sake.
soreff@sri-unix (07/12/82)
In reply to the question "By what method can society prevent a sane, but ill intending, person from using the insanity defense to that person's aid, while still maintaining a haven for the truly ill?": This depends to a large extent on whether one believes that people cluster into discernably ill and healthy groups. If one believes this, then the problem seems to be in the technology of diagnosis. If we had lab tests for mental illness which involved evidence that was very difficult to fake (blood chemisry, CAT scan results, EEGs etc.) then the problem would be much less severe. If one doesn't believe that people are usually clearly healthy or clearly ill, then one can't avoid setting an arbitrary threshold somewhere. There is a more stringent test for diagnostics to be used in a trial than for use in ordinary diagnosis. Rather than testing the tests on known ill and healthy populations, one must test them on known ill and healthy populati attempting to feign illness.
dae (07/12/82)
For those of you that think Hinckley got off scott free by being declared insane, go visit your local institution! If I were faced with the option of going in an institution or going to jail, I think I would choose the jail. Any sane person going into a place like that would certainly be a looney by the time they got out. And if you think the conditions in an institution are any better than a prison, maybe you're in need of a few treatments.
jj (07/12/82)
Well, the chance of a novice getting killed in a penitentary is about 10% according to some folk's statistics. Assuming that they are wrong, and that the chance is 1%, the risk of death still is very large. I grant you that asylums are NOT great places to visit, even as an observer, but they can, to a person willing to shuffle along and look lost for the requsite period of time, be safe. I certainly couldn't stand an asylum, but then I wouldn't get myself put there either... Besides, the reply assumes that you will get out of prison alive and sane. Alive maybe... Sane, never. The only kind of sanity that I can see being generated in prison is hate driven revenge. Whether or not that is sane is another <important> question, i.e. do prisons drive the prisoners insane? I could muster arguements either way, myself. By the way, there are enlightened asylums, even those for the criminally insane. A person who has money, or fame, behind him could most likely chose<in some sense> the asylum that he winds up in. It's certainly punishment, but for a lesser time (1-2 years vs. 20 yrs) and with a lesser chance of bodily harm.
burt (07/13/82)
A recent issue of Psychology Today had an article on the use of
the insanity defence by the American poet Ezra Pound. I have not
seen the original article, and appologize for any errors in the
following summary.
Ezra Pound, a staunch facist, spent the Second World War in Italy.
He made several radio broadcasts to Allied troops, a la Tokyo Rose.
After the war, the American government charged him with treason.
An eminent psychiatrist, Dr. Oppenhiemer, was convinced that
Pound should not be jailed because of his literary genius.
Oppenhiemer was able to convice the court that Pound was insane,
despite the opinions of many less eminent psychiatrists.
For many years, Pound lived a life of ease in an asylum run
by Oppenhiemer. He continued his literary activities, and entertained
many guests. Oppenhiemer was able to suppress the reports of
examining psychiatrists who repeatedly found Pound perfectly sane.pcmcgeer (07/13/82)
There is an old legal expression: *sixtifor*. The sixtifor is defined to be the key question in a case - the one whose answer determines the outcome of the case, or the issue. I suspect that rabbit!jj (rabbit.601) has asked the sixtifor. Clearly if the purpose of the law is to punish, then insanity is a valid defense - for who among us would punish a man simply because he is ill? On the other hand, if the purpose of the law is the protection of society, then the insanity defense is no defense at all. For sane or not, ill-intentioned or simply mad, the offender is the same threat to society: society is therefore concerned only with whether or ot he committed the act with which he is charged. Rick.
djj (07/14/82)
One of the fundamental issues that must be resolved is the question of "what is insane/insanity"???? In my opinion, most major defense by insanity cases come down to which side's psychiatrists are the better actors. Granted, there is no cut-and-dried test for insanity, but certainly the testing procedures need to be identified more clearly. A related issue here is the constitutional right to a trial by "a jury of peers." Can it be argued that a jury of allegedly sane people are peers to one pleading insanity? Further, what is on trial in many of these cases is the findings of the psychiatrists, not the accused. Is a jury of "average" people able to adequately comprehend the discussion of schizophrenia, psychoses, etc???? As for the issues of mental institutions being worse than prisons, this is certainly a matter of degree. I believe there are arguments for both sides. However, prison terms (ignoring for a moment the issue of parole) are generally much more rigid than commitments to institutions. All that is required to get out of a mental hospital is to "prove" sanity and ability to function in society. The opportunity for this process may occur as soon as 3-6 months after commitment. The convicted felon does not have this opportunity to become "innocent." Enough rambling from me; let's hear from the rest of you. Dave Johnson BTL-PY
smb (07/15/82)
References: pyuxcc.305 I was about to say that most folks couldn't simulate appropriate forms of insanity well enough to fool shrinks -- one would have to act crazy in a consistent fashion, including consistency with other documented behavior. Then I remembered this story; I'm sorry I don't have a specific reference. As part of an experiment (by some psychologists, I believe, though it may have been my a newspaper), several sane (whatever that is) folks acted crazy enough to get themselves committed to an institution. Immediately thereafter, they dropped the act and behaved normally. It took them *months* to convince the staff that they were rational! Among the amusing sidelights were that the other patients spotted the act almost immediately, and that their normal and rational behavior was diagnosed as "hostility and lack of co-operation" by the doctors.