Is the Insanity Plea a legitimate defense?

[Substitute Troll]

Hey guys, I have an idea! Let's not waste a bunch of money on this guy. Instead, we could incase his feet in cement and throw him in the ocean.

*Enter Penn & Teller*

"But by doing this you're killing a HUMAN BEING!"

In my mind he lost his humanity after what he did. This isn't a human being, this is an abomination.

"But if we have death penalty there's a chance that innocent people get killed before we can prove their innocence!"

There's like, NOTHING that suggests it wasn't him. He's clearly the one who commited these murders. I don't want the death penalty to be a standard penalty like it is in the US, but I'd like it to be reserved for people like this.

Of course, I'm not living in Norway so my opinion means less than shit. Still, Norway shouldn't waste time and money on someone like this.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Well... yeah.

Someone who does something like this is clearly psychotic.

As for 'insanity defence is the light option' this isn't Gotham City, and psychiatric institutions are not Arkham Asylum. They are actually far harder to get out of than a prison in most cases. Also, you will be there for life, unable to convince anyone that you should be allowed to leave because you are sane.

When you're in a prison, once you've undergone a sentence which is prescribed in years by a judge, and possibly a mandated rehabilitation course, then you are out.

when you're in an Institute, you don't have a number of years until your release, you don't have rehabilitation programmes, you have therapy, and the doctors decide when you are fit to be released. And the overwhelming evidence is that you will not be.

There was a rather famous study done about it, in which a group of volunteers went into various Psychiatric wards claiming symptoms conducive with schizophrenia, and were admitted. Once they were admitted they found it impossible to convince anyone that the symptoms had abated, and they were kept incarcerated until the lead researcher ended the experiment.

He will be locked away for life, with no chance of ever being released.

No, the insanity plea isn't a legitimate 'defence.' Because it leads to far worse consequences than a simple guilty plea.

 

[Muspelheim]

My guess is that he faked insanity and if Norway's system works anything like Sweden's... Well, he'll be out in 3-4 years, when the doctors realized that he isn't actually insane.

Yes, but if I've understood it correctly, Mijailo Mijailović was not mentally fit when he committed the murder, but is today. So far, there have been no signs that he's being released anytime soon. Just as an example.

Even if you cannot take full responsibility of your actions while in a delerium, it still doesn't mean that you are completly free of consequences once you are considered "cured". And in Breivik's case, it seems extremly unlikely that would happen.

 

[Vegosiux]

should still go to prison if somebody is a danger to the society the only thing we can do is either kill that person or stow the person away.

Thing is, a prison is not the only way to stow someone away. High-sec loony ward is also a way to stow them away, so what's the difference? The only difference is the "uniform".

It's not like in the movies where insanity defense gets you off scot-free. It only puts you in a different institution, but you're out for life.

 

[spartan231490]

I don't really see much of a difference myself. "stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage." life spent in a loony bin isn't that much different than life in a prison. Hell, here in the USA, it might be more of a punishment, with how well prisoners are treated.

But fundamentally I do agree with it. I don't think that we should punish people who were crazy for acting according to their delusions, but we should definitely make sure they never get out into the real world again. the Safety of the public is the first concern.

 

[manic_depressive13]

What kind of service do you think they have in psychiatric wards? It's the same as prison except they make you take drugs that fuck with your head. It's not like he escaped punishment or anything.

 

[DracoSuave]

He was psychotic at the time of the attacks?
What about all the time it took to prepare them?

Probably just as insane.

People are confusing 'guilty' with 'he did it.'

Guilt requires two things in western law: actus rea and mens rea. Actus rea is the 'guilty action' and Mens rea is the 'guilty mind.'

Most successful defenses are based on actus rea: "He didn't do it." "He wasn't there." "You can't prove he was there." The insanity defense instead goes "He doesn't have a working brain."

Premeditation doesn't play into it; if his premeditation was under the 'crazy' than he's insane. "Temporary insanity" doesn't happen as often as you'd think, because "insanity" is rarely temporary. This would require a situation with such emotional and physical stress that the person is no longer cognizant.

A lot of the outrage comes from a misunderstanding of what legal insanity entails. Yes, you gotta be crazy to kill someone, but legal insanity is a specific, special sort of insanity where the individual truly is incapable of controlling their actions or being aware of what they're doing. Being driven to rage by anger, on the other hand, certainly is not legal insanity.

 

[MammothBlade]

I'm not sure that it does make sense. It depends on the specific extent of a mental illness.

If you think about it, he had all these motivations from the start. His intentions were probably the same regardless of whether he had psychotic delusions. He actively planned to kill and bomb hundreds of people. And he knew he was killing people, not demons out to get him. At that level of high-functioning, he had at least some capacity to account for his actions, whether he believed himself the leader of the Knights Templar or simply an individual terrorist.

I believe he should have been executed. Unfortunately, Norway abolished the death penalty out of a misguided rehabilitation-orientated policy.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Yes, that is exactly what I said: someone could get killed.

What exactly did you think I meant by 'someone could get killed'?
Did you think i meant 'everything will be totally cool forever'?
Because I promise you 'everything will be totally cool forever' is pretty much the exact opposite of what I meant when I said 'someone could get killed.'

Like really entirely the exact opposite.

That's also not what I was saying at all. I was saying that he wouldn't be much different in regard to crime-severity in whatever prison he's put in. Ergo, as far as prison function goes, he would just be one more inmate.

...locked in an institutional building. For the rest of his natural life, yes.
That's is also exactly what I said. Yes.

Tell me something, what, precisely, do you think the word 'imprisoned' means?

You don't honestly think the expressions "there for the rest of his life" and "imprisoned" are mutually exclusive, do you?
What with one basically being the definition of the other and all.

Basically.

I was focusing more on your "He will never be treated or cured" remark, because I'm positive that even if he's a lifer, they're still going to try and help him because that's the entire point of a mental institution.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I'm not sure that it does make sense. It depends on the specific extent of a mental illness.

If you think about it, he had all these motivations from the start. His intentions were probably the same regardless of whether he had psychotic delusions. He actively planned to kill and bomb hundreds of people. And he knew he was killing people, not demons out to get him. At that level of high-functioning, he had at least some capacity to account for his actions, whether he believed himself the leader of the Knights Templar or simply an individual terrorist.

And that excludes him from being insane because...?

Criminal insanity is, in its broadest definition, the inability to distinguish right from wrong. You don't have to think that you're Richard the III being aided by the ghost of John Paul II to be legally insane.

I believe he should have been executed. Unfortunately, Norway abolished the death penalty out of a misguided rehabilitation-orientated policy.

Misguided? They've got a 20% relapse rate when it comes to released prisoners (meaning 20% end up back in jail after their release). The US has around a 60% relapse rate. And if someone manages to get the evidence tested using modern tech, we might be discovering that the state of Texas just executed an innocent man.

Yeah. 'Misguided.' Sure.

He was psychotic at the time of the attacks?
What about all the time it took to prepare them?

Probably just as insane.

People are confusing 'guilty' with 'he did it.'

Guilt requires two things in western law: actus rea and mens rea. Actus rea is the 'guilty action' and Mens rea is the 'guilty mind.'

Most successful defenses are based on actus rea: "He didn't do it." "He wasn't there." "You can't prove he was there." The insanity defense instead goes "He doesn't have a working brain."

Premeditation doesn't play into it; if his premeditation was under the 'crazy' than he's insane. "Temporary insanity" doesn't happen as often as you'd think, because "insanity" is rarely temporary. This would require a situation with such emotional and physical stress that the person is no longer cognizant.

A lot of the outrage comes from a misunderstanding of what legal insanity entails. Yes, you gotta be crazy to kill someone, but legal insanity is a specific, special sort of insanity where the individual truly is incapable of controlling their actions or being aware of what they're doing. Being driven to rage by anger, on the other hand, certainly is not legal insanity.

You hit the nail on the head. Although temporary insanity is usually used for the things you mention in the last paragraph, often classified as 'crimes of passion.'

 

[MammothBlade]

And that excludes him from being insane because...?

Criminal insanity is, in its broadest definition, the inability to distinguish right from wrong. You don't have to think that you're Richard the III being aided by the ghost of John Paul II to be legally insane.

Misguided? They've got a 20% relapse rate when it comes to released prisoners (meaning 20% end up back in jail after their release). The US has around a 60% relapse rate. And if someone manages to get the evidence tested using modern tech, we might be discovering that the state of Texas just executed an innocent man.

There are a lot of remorseless psychopathic murderers who don't know right from wrong. Doesn't exclude them. ABB had massive delusions of grandeur, but it remains that he knew what he was doing, especially in the act of bombing and killing. Society is just better off without monsters who go around mass murdering others, sane or not. ABB can never be rehabilitated into society. Executed murderers have a 0% relapse rate.

Norway had a lower crime rate in the first place. It's a generally more cohesive society. So maybe they can afford to go soft on crime.

Also you're not saying that there's the slightest chance ABB could be innocent, are you?

 

[orangeban]

Of course you can't send insane people to prison, it wouldn't be justice. If someone didn't have the capacity to control their actions or fully understand their actions, it is not right to punish them for it. Instead we send them to an institute where they can get psychiatric help, that's how these things work people.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

People seem to think being locked in a high security psych ward is somehow better than being put in prison. Seeing as how there are real nutjobs in psych wards (I've been committed before and even in the non-prison versions there are some scary ass people) I wouldn't call it a cakewalk. Plus they may keep him heavily sedated or straightjacketed if he becomes violent or disruptive so, thats not much of a life. Some people, most people, would actually prefer prison.

 

[Muspelheim]

And that excludes him from being insane because...?

Criminal insanity is, in its broadest definition, the inability to distinguish right from wrong. You don't have to think that you're Richard the III being aided by the ghost of John Paul II to be legally insane.

Misguided? They've got a 20% relapse rate when it comes to released prisoners (meaning 20% end up back in jail after their release). The US has around a 60% relapse rate. And if someone manages to get the evidence tested using modern tech, we might be discovering that the state of Texas just executed an innocent man.

There are a lot of remorseless psychopathic murderers who don't know right from wrong. Doesn't exclude them. ABB had massive delusions of grandeur, but it remains that he knew what he was doing, especially in the act of bombing and killing. Society is just better off without monsters who go around mass murdering others, sane or not. ABB can never be rehabilitated into society. Executed murderers have a 0% relapse rate.

Norway had a lower crime rate in the first place. It's a generally more cohesive society. So maybe they can afford to go soft on crime.

Also you're not saying that there's the slightest chance ABB could be innocent, are you?

While I agree in a way, that it'd be more merciful for everyone, including Breivik himself to execute him, I am alright with that it won't happen. He is a madman, and it's a moral choice that dates far back to the middle ages if I remember correctly to not kill a madman. It's the law that's been agreed upon, and that is what will happen.

 

[sombod]

as a person that live in norway, and ive been living in norway all my life, i can promise you that being declared insane and put in a mental institution is far worse.

in the mental institution, nothing of what you say will be even thought upon, every move, every thought u put forward can and Will be dismissed as ''crazyness''

this also works great because of the ''manifesto'' he put out. clearly, the man is brilliantly gifted when it comes to intellect, he is not a stupid gunman. but he is delusional.


id like for him burn tho, really slowly. that fucker killed my friends

EDIT: by the way guys, he did not plead himself insane, he says that he is totally sane. also, prison in norway is a fucking awesome thing. u have a computer, a tv, shower(your own) etc. pretty much everything u need other than freedom

 

[peruvianskys]

Norway had a lower crime rate in the first place. It's a generally more cohesive society. So maybe they can afford to go soft on crime.

Also you're not saying that there's the slightest chance ABB could be innocent, are you?

Crime rates have nothing to do with per capita relapse rates. Even if there are ten criminals in Norway and ten thousand in America, if 20% of the Norwegians end up back in jail and 60% of the Americans, it's still a lower recidivism rate. It's really absurd to criticize Norway's prison system; almost everyone in the world agrees that it's one of the best around, and the statistics back it up. That doesn't mean that it could necessarily be imported to America without alteration and have the same results, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a worthwhile system in the country it exists in. I personally don't care where ABB is as long as he's removed from the general population.

 

[Naeo]

The insanity plea is absolutely legitimate, when it can be proven. Sometimes people's brains simply do not work normally and that is absolutely a mitigating factor. But this in no way means we should just let people who successfully argue for the insanity case walk free, because they've still done awful things.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Here's the options:

1) Put an insane man in a jail where he'll continue being insane and will be a danger to everyone around him. That is, until he is eventually released.

2) Put an insane man in a loony bin where he'll be treated and kept in a safe place away from danger and will be unable to cause any more damage until he either recovers or dies.

Which one sounds like he better fucking option? It's naive to think that you can put insane people in with other criminals and expect the system to work. People need to stop thinking you can deny criminals help, it's idiotic to say the least.

 

[Torrasque]

As with most things, movies embellish the "my client is insane" plea to ridiculous proportions. IRL, the "my client is bat shit crazy" is a legitimate plea due to the fact that they hire professional psychologists and medical experts to determine whether the person is loony or not.
All that aside, it is probably better for the guy to be in a psychiatric ward for the rest of his life than a jail for however long he'd be there. Very few countries have a legal system that is fair and makes sense, so I'd wager that as far as quarantining this nut job from the general public goes, the psych ward is a better place to put him.