HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Judge finds accused gunma...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:26 PM

Judge finds accused gunman in Oakland college shooting unfit for trial

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Reuters

By Ronnie Cohen
OAKLAND, California | Mon Jan 7, 2013 6:32pm EST

(Reuters) - A former nursing student accused of killing seven people at a Christian college in Oakland last April was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial on Monday.

The ruling by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Carrie Panetta came after two doctors who evaluated One Goh, 44, determined that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.

Panetta ordered that Goh undergo an assessment to determine what facility he should be placed in for treatment of his mental illness. She scheduled another hearing in the case for January 28.

If a judge determines at a later point that Goh has regained his mental competency, he would be ordered to stand trial in the high-profile case.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/us-usa-shooting-oakland-idUSBRE9060XS20130107

8 replies, 1445 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge finds accused gunman in Oakland college shooting unfit for trial (Original post)
Eugene Jan 2013 OP
Xipe Totec Jan 2013 #1
BainsBane Jan 2013 #2
Xipe Totec Jan 2013 #3
slackmaster Jan 2013 #4
BainsBane Jan 2013 #5
Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #7
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #6
Xipe Totec Jan 2013 #8

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:37 PM

1. Unfit to live free, then?

Permanent confinement it is?

Or is this one of those conditions controlled with medication?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:51 PM

2. they won't let him free

even if controlled with medication, he might stop taking it. They'll keep him locked up for a couple of years anyway. Paranoid schizophrenia is quite treatable with medication, but non-compliance is high because the side effects of the drugs are so bad.

There are so many of these mass shootings, I can't keep track of them all. I don't even remember this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:56 PM

3. I remember it.

And I agree, I've had experiences with other schizophrenics. As soon as they start feeling better, they stop taking their meds and then do not realize when they fall back under the influence of their affliction.

Sadly, the best thing for him and for us is permanent supervision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:57 PM

4. He'll never walk out in public unattended again

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:10 PM

5. let's hope not nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:09 PM

7. If he regains mental competency then he will be tried

You can't constitutionally try someone who is unable to understand the proceedings and cooperate with his or her own defense.

I wouldn't worry about him hitting the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:23 PM

6. OK, forgive a technical note--

the issue of competency to stand trial is different from that of criminal responsibility.

Competency to stand trial actually has a much higher standard--you have to be found unable to participate in your defense. For example, not able to understand the court proceedings or unable to give useful information to your attorney.

He could be restored to competency to stand trial with medication, for example, and at that point he would be tried. He or his attorney could then raise the defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect (the so-called Insanity Defense, commonly abbreviated NGI, Not Guilty by reason of Insanity), which would then require a separate mental examination in which the doctors would attempt to determine whether or not he met the criteria for legal insanity at the time of the crime.

The criteria for insanity vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some still using the old M'Naughten Rule and some having virtually eliminated the NGI but the most common (and most modern) standard is the American Law Institute (ALI) standard. According to the ALI standard, one has to convince the trier of fact that at the time of the crime he either a) did not understand that what he did was wrong or b) despite understanding the wrongness of his action, was unable to refrain from doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:53 PM

8. Your comments, JR, are always welcome, on point, and illuminating.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread