General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think that an injustice is being done to Jared Loughner
Yes, I believe that the man who killed six people and wounded fourteen others, including Gabby Giffords in a mass shooting is being done an injustice.
He is scheduled for a hearing today, one where the judge will determine if Loughner is now competent to stand trial, and if that is the case, to enter a plea. There is apparently a plea deal in the works, a guilty plea in exchange for life in prison.
This is where I believe the injustice is occurring, namely if he was found to incompetent due to schizophrenia a year ago, then doesn't that pretty much mean that he was insane at the time of the shootings? And if that is the case, instead of being sentenced to life in prison, shouldn't he be treated as any other murderer who is found insane and placed in a mental facility instead of prison?
By placing Loughner in prison, we are going to be denying the man the help that he needs. Worse, if he is given the death penalty, we will be killing a man who way mentally incompetent, not responsible for his actions due to his mental state, instead of treating his disease.
Not guilty by reason of mental deficiency or defect seems the way to go to me. Life in prison seems another injustice perpetrated by our flawed justice system.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)What Loughner did was horrifying. All murders are horrifying. But, when the state knows someone is mentally ill railroading them to prison is also horrifying. I think he should be institutionalized for the rest of his life. But, it should be in a mental hospital first or perhaps for the rest of his life. But, certainly before they release him into a general prison population.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I also agree with you, he needs to first be put in a mental institution, and then when he is found to be cured, put in the general prison population.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He's probably never going to come out of there.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)The question before the court now is whether he is mentally fit to understand the charges against him and competently enter a plea. It's a legal question, not a medical one.
Medically, his condition may not be curable. It may only be manageable if he continues taking meds for the rest of his life. The court can mandate this, and he may or may not be able to serve his sentence in a prison.
Unmedicated, he is a danger to himself and society. (I worry more about society).
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)1. "Insanity" as a defense to committing a crime addresses the state of mind and moral reasoning capability of the accused at the time the crime was committed.
2. "Competent to stand trial" is a question about whether the accused is able to comprehend the charges against him/her and participate in defense of the case.
These two things are independent and unrelated.
Regardless of whether you were insane at the time of the crime, or incompetent to stand trial at some earlier time, what matters at any given stage of the criminal process is whether, now, you are competent to stand trial or enter a plea. You may be determined to be incompetent at some point in time, and the usual course is for you to receive treatment until such time as you are competent. But that has nothing to do with whatever bearing your state of mind at the time of the alleged crime may have on whatever plea you enter.
An untreated full-blown schizo might be incompetent to stand trial or enter a plea, but may very well become competent in the course of treatment for that condition.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Probably means that he was insane at the time of the shooting, don't you think?
And the way that they have gotten Loughner to the point of being competent to stand trial is by forcing him to take medication against his will.
I think the man is being railroaded.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)different things.
Further....you don't have a constitutional right to refuse medication when you are a harm to others. That is the legal standard under which Mr. Loughner was given meds.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)What I am saying is that he was found incompetent to stand trial shortly after his arrest. This means, especially with an illness like schizophrenia, that he was more than likely insane at the time of the shooting. Since schizophrenia is a disease that doesn't appear overnight, then he probably didn't become schizophrenic sometime between the shooting and the competency hearing. Far from it. Thus, he should enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity instead of being railroaded into a life sentence in the general prison population.
As far as refusing medication, those laws vary state by state, and it would be real interesting to explore the jurisdictional technicalities in this, since the shooting was in Arizona, but his treatment was started in Missouri.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Also...MadHound, perhaps you could ascertain your jurisdiction before opining on the law.
This is a federal case....not a state one.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But as far as your legal experience, I'm glad you'll never be my lawyer.
Why not enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? It seems a pretty open and shut case to me
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)draconian M'Naughten rule, upped the standard to clear and convincing, and put the burden on the defendant to prove.
You know why? Hinckley.
In other words, any lawyer in federal practice worth their salt knows that after RR got shot, people were outraged that JH 'got off' on the insanity defense. So Congress changed the law, making it near impossible to use an insanity defense in the federal system. It's a very difficult standard to prove, and JL probably won't meet it. And when it fails? Death.
Further, there's no guarantee Mr. Loughner would allow the defense--Kaczynski didn't.
Lee Boyd Malvo's defense failed, and he had a good case. No...JL's lawyers are keeping him alive and as safe as he can be.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)I know you're an attorney and could answer it better than I could, and I got busy yesterday.
I am 100% anti DP, and Judy Clarke is someone I really think a lot of.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)alive, which is more than he would have had facing a federal jury.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Again, whether he was competent to stand trial at any given point in time is unrelated to the question of sanity at the time of the crime. They are two different things.
As far as being "forced to take medication against his will", I don't see the point. On the one hand, you are questioning his ability to exert conscious will in an untreated condition. If your position is that his mental condition rendered him unable to morally assess his actions in connection with the shooting, then I don't see why you are then suggesting that he should direct his course of treatment. As you state, he is a diagnosed schizophrenic. Competent medical professionals are able to treat that condition with appropriate medications that can indeed render the schizophrenic capable of a higher degree of function than left untreated.
Clearly if someone wanted to avoid the process going forward, and had been deemed incompetent to stand trial, then their expressed will not to receive treatment, so as to remain incompetent to stand trial, is not a viable option in the context of the social purpose of criminal procedure.
But stating "if he is incompetent to stand trial, then he was insane at the time of the shooting" is putting the cart before the horse. They are not the same thing.
"Insanity" is a legal term, not a psychological one. You could just as well throw up your hands in such cases as the Aurora shooting and say, as is perfectly reasonable to say, that no sane person would even do such a thing. In the colloquial sense, you would be correct. I mean, come on - we want to figure out whether a colloquially "sane" person would walk into a theater and shoot people at random? That's just silly. For that matter, we might as well define entire classes of crimes as being the acts of colloquially "insane" people.
But that's not what we do, nor is it what "insanity" is about in courts. The question, for sanity purposes, was not whether a right-thinking person would do these things. The question is more along the lines of "Did you know what you were doing?", "Did you know what you were doing was wrong or were you capable of knowing it was wrong?" These are fairly low thresholds.
Competency is along the lines of "Do you know you are charged with a crime, and we are going to conduct a process of adjudicating your guilt?", "Will you be able to assist your attorney in answering questions to enable him/her to conduct your defense?", and so on.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Do you believe that somehow he developed schizophrenia between the time of the shooting and the time of his competency hearing?
I believe that Loughner should enter a plea of not guilty due to insanity, he would have a very good case. Instead, he is being railroaded into a life sentence in the general prison population.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I wasn't there, don't know him, am not a psychologist, am not his attorney, and I'm certainly not a juror in possession of relevant evidence as to what his state of mind was at the time.
If your generally proposition is "schizophrenics can never be convicted, because they are always insane", then that is nonsense. Basically because you seem to equate "schizophrenic" with "insane". Again, "schizophrenic" is a psychological diagnosis. "Insane" is a legal determination.
"Insane" does not mean "mentally ill". No psychologist or psychiatrist issues a diagnosis of "insanity".
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And assigning meanings to my posts that simply aren't there? Thank you.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Note the words "if" and "you seem". These are statements of perception on this end, just as your "So, you think...?" question is.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)funny when a poster accuses you of doing the exact thing that they're doing.
Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Considering that you were unaware of the jurisdiction of this case (a basic fact), I suggest that you might wish to carefully reread what he's written.
But if you don't want to, I look forward to you citing the post-Hinckley federal statute you think gives JL a snowball's chance in Hell.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)this. Last year it was determined that he was not competent to participate in his own defense trial, where he would obviously plead insanity.
Now, after treatment, they are revisiting the issue of whether he is competent of participating in his own defense, where he would obviously plead insanity (at the time the shootings occurred of course).
If he is judge competent to stand trial then he can plead insanity, for which I presume he has a fairly strong case compared to most such pleas.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with Schizophrenia. Eg, you say that 'medical professionals can prescribe appropriate medications that can render the schixphrenic capable of a higher of function than when left untreated'.
This is true, to an extent. And depends on what you mean by 'higher function', especially in a case like this. For one thing, it often takes years to find the correct combination of medications for schizophrenia and many times prescribed meds don't make all that much difference to the patient. Over time, and often with many different doctors, it is possible to do so. But it is difficult.
Clearly if someone wanted to avoid the process going forward, and had been deemed incompetent to stand trial, then their expressed will not to receive treatment, so as to remain incompetent to stand trial, is not a viable option in the context of the social purpose of criminal procedure.
The last paragraph doesn't make sense. If someone has been deemed incompetent, it is unlikely they would be competent enough to engage in such a thought process. Schizophrenics are not exactly capable of thinking of anyone's best interests, least of all many times, their own. From my experience such a thought process would be almost impossible for someone diagnosed as he has been. In fact, while his attorneys might take this view and advise him, it is very possible that the individual would refuse to accept it. It's very frustrating to be a family member, or a lawyer, for someone suffering from this disease precisely because they cannot always see what is best for them, let alone anyone else. EVEN with medication.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A competent medical professional can assess whether or not the medication is having a therapeutic effect.
Yes, treatment of schizophrenia to the level of being able to productively function in society is by no means a simple proposition.
The standard of "competent to stand trial" is not "able to live independently and productively". It is a very low threshold.
There are perfectly mentally healthy people who cannot see what is "best for them", and there are perfectly mentally healthy people who make bad decisions.
The standard of "competent to stand trial" is most certainly not "able to make decisions on the basis of what is in your own best interest", as it is quite obvious that mentally healthy people fail that standard on a daily basis.
On the subject of making a bad decision, the proposition here is:
1. Enter a plea of insanity. That plea can fail, and you will be executed. If the plea succeeds, you will be indefinitely confined anyway.
2. Take the deal, avoid the death penalty, and remain confined for life.
Whether or not it is in anyone's "best interest" to avoid taking a flyer on getting executed versus a life sentence is, IMHO, not a decision that anyone, especially anyone on an internet forum, is able to make for anyone else.
The question is simply whether he is able to understand these two options with some degree of rationality - i.e. "I might be executed" and "I will not be executed" - and make an informed decision between those two options.
In everyday life, a mentally healthy person might say something like, "I prayed about this decision, and I believe God wants me to do X." We certainly let people make decisions on that basis.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"competent to stand trial" for crimes committed while non compos mentis? And if found guilty to be sentenced to life in prison, no doubt. Thgis reminds me of I think it was Texas where the state Supreme Court found that a schizophrenic could be executed for murder as long as he was receiving medication and thus narrowly and legally "sane" at the time of execution.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Okay, so explain to me how we get to a trial in order to determine whether the suspect (a) wants to plead insanity, (b) participates in the defense, (c) or can be determine sane or insane during the commission of a crime? Because you aren't going to GET to step C - i.e. figuring out if he was insane - without HAVING a trial. Maybe the defendant wants to plead guilty or defend on some other basis. It is the defendant's sole right to decide how to plead, so before we get to the question of whether there were "crimes committed while non compos mentis", we are going to have to figure out whether the defendant wants to even plead that as a defense, plead guilty, plead not guilty on some other basis, and so on.
You have before horse the cart put in the statement I quoted above.
One can have been perfectly sane during the commission of a crime, and have become of unsound mind afterwards. Likewise one may have been insane during the commission of a crime, and gotten better later.
However, and once more with feeling, "insanity" for the purpose of an affirmative defense is NOT THE SAME THING as "competence" for the purpose of being able to choose a plea and to understand what one is doing in so choosing. But I can't for the life of me figure out how you want to have someone decide to plead insanity, without first determining if they have some minimal awareness of what they are pleading and what their options are.
trumad
(41,692 posts)I agree with you.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)probably remain there for life.
atreides1
(16,091 posts)A question, if placed in a mental facility, wouldn't he be eligible for release at some point?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Depends on Arizona law and the deal made in court. Most folks who are found not guilty by reason of mental defect are in a mental facility for the rest of their life.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)If he is deemed incompetent to stand trial, he remains under treatment until he is, if ever.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)then doesn't that mean he consented to it?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Seriously, they've had him locked in a mental institution for a year force feeding him strong drugs. Hell, I doubt that he is "competent" to decide anything.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)the defense can bring up the conditions he's been under, and the drugs. Do you know who the judge is, and do you have any reason to believe he will rule incorrectly?
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)medication is able to make him competent to stand trial now. Meaning, his current mental state when he is being treated is one where he can understand the gravity of his charges, and participate in his defense. That does not mean he wasn't legally insane at the time of the shootings. It simply means he understands now, in his medically treated state, what crimes he's being accused of having committed.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)He gets to decide whether to plead or not.
He could have been crazy then and be sane now, and decide, sanely, to not pursue an insanity defense today for his actions then.
Choice is choice. He may feel that his insanity defense would fail and that he would be executed.
The empressof all
(29,098 posts)I don't know what the system is like in Arizona but regardless of his sentence most likely he'll wind up in a mental health unit either way. Here in WA state the prison system is the third largest mental health provider in the state. Generally inmates with mental health diagnosis are segregated and in this case in particular there could be grounds for potential law suits if he isn't in a highly managed setting as he is high risk. He won't be sharing a cell and he will still have access to treatment which in his case would be first line medication.
I'm not suggesting that pressuring for a plea is a morally correct action here...Just sayin...for this guy it probably will have the same result.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The empressof all
(29,098 posts)But I would imagine the same would apply. If he were found not guilty by reason of insanity wouldn't he be remanded to an Arizona state hospital? He'd probably get better medical care with the Feds.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He won't win a federal insanity defense...upthread, I outlined the statute.
The empressof all
(29,098 posts)He's where he belongs....
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Allow anyone no matter how mentally ill they are to buy as many guns as they like. Fill the airwaves and public discourse with hate speech and fear. When the mentally ill person then commits horrific acts of using those weapons on human beings (conservatives of course have their fingers crossed that they are used on people of color or left (of Attila the Hun) thinking people). If the shooter survives then throw them in prison until they can execute them.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)What Loughner did was horrible, but at the same time, he was schizophrenic, and completely psychotic.
So what would Loughner be like once he gets some treatment, gets a competent psychiatrist to properly titrate his medication, and gets some proper counseling and therapy?
Some people who did horrible and fucked up things while psychotic end up being the nicest folks once they get medication and therapy and clear their heads.
obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)She is skilled and sincere and successful.
If she has recommended he take the deal, then it is the best and the right thing for him to do.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I learned long ago that no matter what, don't trust your attorney. No matter how good they seem, never trust them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)You have egg on your face.
Eric Rudolph and the Unabomber, among others, are alive because of her. She defends those considered indefensible. She gives life to those who have taken life. Both she and the government know what it means when she is hired as a defense attorney.
You have unfairly broadbrushed an entire profession.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I think that not trusting your attorney is both the right and proper attitude to take. Don't believe me, ask the thousands in prison who were railroaded in there by their defense attorneys who were too busy, too incompetent, or too politically ambitious to provide a proper defense. Ask the millions of single parents who've been screwed over by weak legal representation.
If you're choosing to defend the legal profession as a paragon of virtue and honesty, well, you're one of a very few to do so.
obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)And am rather appalled you don't think she is one of the good guys. 
I mean, a woman who saves people from death and does the following is really a paragon of non virtue:
"She has helped several high-profile defendants avoid capital punishment.[8] She's considered a "master strategist in death penalty cases" and opposes capital punishment.[9] Clarke returned to South Carolina the $82,944 fee approved by the trial judge for her defense of Susan Smith, so that the funds could be used to defend other indigent defendants charged with crimes.[8]"
Avalux
(35,015 posts)He is finally competent to participate in his own defense, and a plea deal is his best option. I am in total agreement that he was 'insane' at the time of the shooting and not in control of his thoughts and actions. It has taken quite awhile, a lot of medication and working with Loughner to get him to where he is now.
Loughner will plead guilty, receive life in prison, and be in a prison mental hospital for the rest of his life. This is where he belongs. He does not deserve the death penalty, and it will not be safe for him to ever be free in society again. He will need constant care and supervision to ensure he continues to take his meds and receive therapy; there are no drugs that cure schizophrenia so if he ever stops taking them, he becomes dangerous again.
This is the best case scenario for Loughner, IMHO.
1monster
(11,012 posts)when his mental age was about five or six. The family and the victim in that time had managed to managed to live through it, and grow beyond it.
He was charged three years ago and has only now been declared competent to stand trial. His mental age is in the ten to twelve range. There is no defense. He did it, but he did not understand that it was wrong. He only vaguely does now. But diminished capacity due to autism is not defense. Even though the behavior stopped.
It is obscene, but the law is the law and the same lawmakers who will hold those who are mentally incapacitated are the ones who make it almost impossible for those so afflicted to access the services we taxpayer pay for to help them so they won't inadvertently break laws.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)mental institution for unsupervised family visits in 2000. This privilege was suspended when they found out he was sneaking materials about Jodie Foster into the institution.
I think once your mental problems tip over to the point of mass murder, you should be in some sort of institution for life. It needn't be as punishing an environ as prison, per-se, but these people pose such danger to society that they should be kept under lock and key.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)just because Sarah Palin told them to and put crosshairs on the target. The treatment we have for such people is to drug them into a stupor for decades.
Sure he is sick but there isn't anything we can do to cure him. We should accept that and focus on preventing further injuries caused by this individual.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"if he was found to incompetent due to schizophrenia a year ago, then doesn't that pretty much mean that he was insane at the time of the shootings?"
That would mean that his plea is erroneous. Not the place where he will serve his time.
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)It'll either be in prison or a prison hospital.
He is locked up away from everyone he wants to kill.
Whats so different?
