Acquitted of a crime due to not taking meds

[Eri]

I watched a video earlier of a woman. To start with she was on anti-psychotic meds. While on these meds she was perfectly normal.

One day she decided she was tired of taking them and stopped. She drove a few miles from her house, abandoned her car, and walked 2 miles to some random person's home at night. She smashed their window, broke in, and stole a set of keys to their car. She then stole the car and drove off.

Obviously the people had called 911, so within minutes police attempted to pull her over, and she of course decided to have none of it, and kept going. 3 police cruisers, 15 minutes later, and with damage on every single vehicle, they finally get her stopped and arrested.

After all of that, she gets acquitted of ALL charges because she wasn't on her meds.

What the fuck? This entire thing happened because she CONSCIOUSLY chose to stop taking them. She committed who knows how many crimes, and she gets off, because she purposely didn't take her meds?

I could understand if she had no history or something and snapped out of the blue, but she KNEW of her condition and just decided to stop with her medicine.

Is there nothing wrong with this picture? Should she really get off?

 

[iphonerose]

No she shouldn't get off because, she was of sound mind when she made the decision to stop taking meds before advised from a medical psychiatrist, which she shouldn't have. i have heard of cases where people were not acquitted because of this exact reason

 

[LiudvikasT]

Is it so important for you to get your vengeance?
She should take her pills, sure, but I doubt the world would be a better place if we locked her up. The court should probably make sure she takes her pills, though.

 

[Eri]

Is it so important for you to get your vengeance?
She should take her pills, sure, but I doubt the world would be a better place if we locked her up. The court should probably make sure she takes her pills, though.

Alternatively you're giving people(mentally ill in this case) another way to shirk responsibility and do whatever they want.

 

[fenrizz]

Make her pay for the damages, and make sure she stays on her meds.

Problem solved.

 

[Ralphfromdk]

Hell yes she should pay. This is the same thing as when "normal" people take drugs or get drunk, and then do something stupid. They weren't them selves while doing it, BUT, they did take what ever made them go nuts. Ergo, it their own fault.

Crazy person doesn't take their meds, and then do stupid things while crazy, it's their own fault.

 

[BabyRaptor]

When I was about 15 months old, my grandmother walked into my parents' house to find me naked but for a diaper, laying next to an open window on the second floor of the house. My Maternal DNA donor had called her because I'd been screaming all day.

Turns out I was running a 105 degree fever. Where was my "mother"? Downstairs smoking pot with a friend. My crying was "killing their high."

CPS tried to take her to court, and she got off because she wasn't taking her meds. Took her another year to lose custody of me, during which several other not good things happened. The court kept being lenient with her because she claimed she had no money for her meds due to having to support me. She was really spending it on weed. She ended up losing my sister at about the same age about 9 years later.

Still not in jail, still wasting all her money on weed and terrorizing the family due to her illness.

 

[Eri]

When I was about 15 months old, my grandmother walked into my parents' house to find me naked but for a diaper, laying next to an open window on the second floor of the house. My Maternal DNA donor had called her because I'd been screaming all day.

Turns out I was running a 105 degree fever. Where was my "mother"? Downstairs smoking pot with a friend. My crying was "killing their high."

CPS tried to take her to court, and she got off because she wasn't taking her meds. Took her another year to lose custody of me, during which several other not good things happened. The court kept being lenient with her because she claimed she had no money for her meds due to having to support me. She was really spending it on weed. She ended up losing my sister at about the same age about 9 years later.

Still not in jail, still wasting all her money on weed and terrorizing the family due to her illness.

I'm sorry to hear that. It sucks when people get away with things they clearly knew they shouldn't be doing.

 

[Phishfood]

Is it so important for you to get your vengeance?
She should take her pills, sure, but I doubt the world would be a better place if we locked her up. The court should probably make sure she takes her pills, though.

And if she had killed someone? Would you still think she should be free?

This is the exact reverse of drunk driving. She was not of sound mind due to not taking a prescribed medication and thus provably a danger to property, potentially a danger to people.

Think of the people who have had their house broken into and their car stolen. Do you REALLY think they are sat there thinking "Its ok, she was just off her meds. No harm done."?

Perhaps you reduce the severity of the sentence, sure. But doing nothing? thats not right.

 

[trekboy1701]

she should be charged with criminal negligence at the very least if she knew she could end up doing something like that.

there is however the question of are we getting the full story here maybe she wasn't taking as much as she needed to or got more crazy while the doctors were not looking and that's why she went off her pills.

my personal preference would be a payment for everything she broke that wasn't insured and a fine (depending on her doctors testimony if a judge was involved and could get him/her into a court room)

 

[Gigano]

Well, unless she positively knew she'd (be very likely to) go on a crime spree when she stopped taking them, then her actions would at worst be the result of gross negligence, which generally doesn't fulfil the required level of intent in criminal law.

Of course, if she habitually drops her medication and go on crime sprees, then either dropping them will eventually amount to having the required level of intent to warrant criminal sanctions, or she'll simply have to be forcibly locked up in a mental institution as posing a clear and present danger to public safety which she is unable to handle herself.

And her negligence in dropping the medication while sane should allow for compensation to be sought against her.

So hardly as problematic as it would appear.

 

[Jordi]

I agree with the people who say that this is like getting drunk or stoned and then doing stupid shit. Much like drunks and junkies she knew perfectly well what her actions would do to her state of mind, and consciously decided to do that anyway. She should be as responsible for her actions as drunks and junkies.

I might feel slightly different if she didn't consciously choose to not take her medicine (e.g. if they were stolen, or she really really couldn't pay for them).

Is it so important for you to get your vengeance?
She should take her pills, sure, but I doubt the world would be a better place if we locked her up. The court should probably make sure she takes her pills, though.

Like it or not, but vengeance/retribution is pretty much the cornerstone of the criminal justice system.

Well, unless she positively knew she'd (be very likely to) go on a crime spree when she stopped taking them, then her actions would at worst be the result of gross negligence, which generally doesn't fulfil the required level of intent in criminal law.

Of course, if she habitually drops her medication and go on crime sprees, then either dropping them will eventually amount to having the required level of intent to warrant criminal sanctions, or she'll simply have to be forcibly locked up in a mental institution as posing a clear and present danger to public safety which she is unable to handle herself.

Drunk drivers and junkies don't always kill people. You can get behind the wheel drunk (or slightly more intoxicated than allowed) 1000 times without something bad happening. The woman knew what she was taking her meds for, and I assume she knew at least some of the risks. She would probably not have done it if she knew that this would happen, but she did make the choice to risk it.

 

[Gigano]

...The woman knew what she was taking her meds for, and I assume she knew at least some of the risks. She would probably not have done it if she knew that this would happen, but she did make the choice to risk it.

A mere assumption isn't enough for a criminal conviction though.

It must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she knew that the likely outcome of her dropping her medication would be the criminal actions taken; a burden of proof that for all practical purposes cannot be lifted if this is the first time she'd stopped taken them. At least if you can't find some doctor or document testifying to the fact that she was warned that something like this could very well occur if she stopped.

Now she knows though, and probably won't get off the hook should she stop taking them again. And there'll presumably still be damages to pay this time around, assuming a claim is filed.

 

[Merkavar]

I doubt the world would be a better place if we locked her up.

i think she should be locked up. maybe not in jail but one of those hospital/jails. what if she just decides to not take her meds again but this time the house she breaks into the owner has a gun and shots her or puts up a fight and she kills them.

jail isnt always for protecting society from the individual it can be to protect the individual from them selves.

 

[Jordi]

...The woman knew what she was taking her meds for, and I assume she knew at least some of the risks. She would probably not have done it if she knew that this would happen, but she did make the choice to risk it.

A mere assumption isn't enough for a criminal conviction though.

It must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she knew that the likely outcome of her dropping her medication would be the criminal actions taken; a burden of proof that for all practical purposes cannot be lifted if this is the first time she'd stopped taken them. At least if you can't find some doctor or document testifying to the fact that she was warned that something like this could very well occur if she stopped.

Now she knows though, and probably won't get off the hook should she stop taking them again. And there'll presumably still be damages to pay this time around, assuming a claim is filed.

You are probably right. However, it seems to me (not a lawyer) that it is reasonable to expect people to know about the condition that they are being treated for. I also don't know in how much detail a person is supposed to be told what they have. If she is psychotic, that is probably defined by a set of symptoms, and the doctor saying "you're psychotic" or "here is a prescription for anti-psychotic meds" might be enough to inform her.

 

[Gigano]

...
You are probably right. However, it seems to me (not a lawyer) that it is reasonable to expect people to know about the condition that they are being treated for. I also don't know in how much detail a person is supposed to be told what they have. If she is psychotic, that is probably defined by a set of symptoms, and the doctor saying "you're psychotic" or "here is a prescription for anti-psychotic meds" might be enough to inform her.

"Psychosis" is a great many things; It's basically the inability to perceive reality correctly, but how you'll perceive it varies, as does how dangerous to yourself and others those delusions will be. So unless her symptoms had given cause for her provably being informed - while in a lucid state - that she'd be liable to commit crimes if she stopped treatment, then there's no intent on her part, only (gross) negligence. She might well not even remember what she's like when psychotic, and if nobody's told her she's dangerous, well then you can't expect her to work that out for herself, at least not to a degree of criminal liability.

I'd agree it's reasonable to expect that people learn about their condition and its risks, and that not doing so is negligent. Just ain't enough to throw them in jail, at least not the first time around.

Different story if she'd taken drugs and gone on a rampage on those. While their effect can be similar to psychosis, the fact that taking drugs is outlawed in and of itself (unlike not taking prescribed medication), and that their side effects are well known to the lucid people who take them, generally mean that little levy is given to those who offend while on drugs, pretty much no matter their state.