HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » discntnt_irny_srcsm » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

discntnt_irny_srcsm

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Philly
Home country: USA
Current location: NJ
Member since: Thu Apr 21, 2011, 10:48 AM
Number of posts: 7,644

About Me

I like movies. Action and comedy are the best. Mysteries with a twist are great.

Journal Archives

Mental health poll

In the wake of the Dark Knight Rises shootings, one of the topics under scrutiny is the public impact of individual's mental health or lack thereof in firearm crimes.

I note on page 12 of the MAIG report Fatal Gaps that the state of Colorado is among those states close to the national average in terms the cases of mental health records per 100,000 of population submitted to the FBI as part of the information accessible for NICS checks.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf

Good job Colorado, but it's a shame Holmes did make the prohibited list.

I read in the news today:

Legal experts expect Holmes to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Prosecutors who may pursue the death sentence would have to prove he is sane enough to stand trial. Unlike other states where the defense needs to prove insanity, prosecutors in Colorado have to show that a defendant is sane all without the ability of having their own experts examine Holmes.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-31/james-holmes-psychiatrist-aurora-shooting/57474726/1

Now the topic of the poll: In cases such as this, where should the burden of proof rest, with the defense to prove insanity, with the prosecution to prove sanity or to be determined in a separate proceeding outside of the trial?

Please share some thoughts.
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Fri Aug 31, 2012, 05:35 PM (4 replies)

Just the basics

Arms: could mean anything from pocket knives to nukes. The current status is that we've accepted the compromise for personal arms that they be of size, configuration and function such that they can be operated by one person, carried by one person and efficaciously be used in the defense of one or more people.

Rights: are attributes of humanity. An individual has two eyes and one nose those are also attributes common among humans. An individual also has a right to life. The right to life implies a right to self defense. Rights are not sourced from government or other collectives. Rights are not subject to legislative approval, votes from the citizenry, or the approval of my neighbors. Each and every individual has the RIGHT to due process before any of his rights are compromised. That includes terror suspects, illegal aliens, Gitmo detainees and "gun-nut" neighbors of which you may be afraid.

--Rights, The Bill of Rights: protects and enumerates certain rights of the people and powers of the states from government interference. The Constitution defines the federal government; the Bill of Rights outlines some of the government's borders.

--Rights, SCOTUS: has decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the application of protection of the RKBA as an individual right, as decided in DC v. Heller, is extended to state and local governments. It should be noted that among the many amici curiae briefs filed with the court is one from Congress asking the court to find in favor of the petitioners and against Chicago. That brief filed by 2 Senators and 2 US Representatives, 1 of each Republican and Democrat, was signed by 58% of the Congress, overall, more than any other in history.

Laws: are meant to govern the people and control the government. Our government and laws do not nor should they be intended as controls for individuals. Court records and common sense show that neither a law, a gun to the head nor knife to the throat will for sure determine an individual's behavior. Society uses the rule of law to justify the court's due process. Individual behavior (and any crimes arising therefrom) is principally due to individual decision. Believing otherwise rather leads one to question the validity of a sentence determined by the court.

Militias: as detailed in the Constitution are NOT the National Guard.

With the above in mind, any informed reading of the Constitution will, among other facts, lead to the conclusion that it's purpose is to form and constrain the authority of the federal government and define its relationship with the several states. The goals of the federal and state governments are mostly enumerated in the Constitution's Preamble.

Looking at a law as a means of control is counter to the ideals of liberty and justice. When an individual decides to and carries out the killing of another innocent individual. He is detained, charged, tried and sentenced for the offense. If he is coerced by the threat of death or serious injury in the killing, that fact may be offered in his defense. If he has killed in self-defense, he is not guilty of murder. If he has killed by mistake, through no negligence, he is not guilty of murder. To believe that somehow the law would CONTROL the people, would form the basis for an argument that, in the case of a crime, somehow the law was deficient. How could an individual be sentenced for the crime if the law is faulty and partly to blame?

Any thoughts?
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Wed Aug 1, 2012, 02:37 PM (12 replies)
Go to Page: 1