NineMSN thinks a finding of not guilty by virtue of insanity is an “excuse”:
By this evening they’d thought better of it: maybe an adult had had a word. It’s now just “Man found not guilty”.
(Via Evan.)
Elsewhere
We know how the “soft on crime” crowd filed this in their tiny heads
This entry was posted in Crime and Punishment. Bookmark the permalink.
Moved On 
Better filling tiny heads then cutting them off … really Jeremy, how can you defend this?
POINT MISSED.
Sounds like a subbie might have had a brainfart. The fact that they ever thought it was a good idea in the first place does indicate the atmosphere they operate in though.
The first headline certainly better describes what actually happened. He was excused from a guilty version because he was crazed.
Applying Peter Singer’s utilitarian way of looking at this would no doubt result in a conclusion that the monster was eligible to be terminated.
version = verdict
Jeremy, he killed a baby, and got off because he was “crazy”.
Well, aside from chalking this up as another win for compassionate de-institutionalisation of the “mentally ill”, how is the headline inaccurate?
Hang on, are you trying to blame conservative governments cutting mental health funding and closing facilities on the left?
Do you understand why if someone commits an act whilst not in control of their faculties, if they are clinically insane, they are not guilty?
You imply that it’s just some kind of “excuse” – that a murderer just says “hey, I was insane” and the courts go, “oh, okay then”. Do you seriously think that’s how it works?
The first headline certainly better describes what actually happened. He was excused from a guilty version because he was crazed.
Actually, SB, the headline says he was “saved”. Your incorrect use of “excused” as a synonym reveals that you’re trying to play the same game as NineMSN.
Given that the man has been sentenced to a mental health facility for an indefinite period, how exactly has he been ‘saved’?
Whoa, hang on tiger! Who said anything about left or right? Though if “the left” was up for getting crazies off our streets and back into institutions, I’d say, sign me up!
You still haven’t answered my question about how the headline was inaccurate, I note.
What did you mean by “another win for compassionate de-institutionalisation of the “mentally ill”” then?
The headline is inaccurate because it attempts to portray an insanity defence as “an excuse”.
Now please answer my questions:
*Do you understand why if someone commits an act whilst not in control of their faculties, if they are clinically insane, they are not guilty?
*You imply that it’s just some kind of “excuse” – that a murderer just says “hey, I was insane” and the courts go, “oh, okay then”. Do you seriously think that’s how it works?
Mondo, I am a bit cynical about the insanity plea. The classic case is if someone kills another person whom they believe to be not human – say a witch or a devil. Temporary insanity is even worse.
Singh be detained in a mental health facility until, and if, he is assessed as being no danger to the public
“Indefinite” detention is also problematic, as it is especially when there is a subsequent ‘cure’. In this case, being “assessed as being no danger to the public” is quite different to being “no danger to the public”.
In capital cases their should be a presumption against being later declared cured.
I tend to agree SB, but that is only barely relevant to the issue at hand – being NineMSN’s blatantly sensationalist reporting. It’s almost like they specifically set out to misrepresent and undermine the court’s decision.
If you deign it worthwhile to answer Lefty’s questions I’ve got another one for you Shabs:
Jeremy, how can you defend this?
My question is – what exactly do you think Jeremy is defending?
Mondo, being brief, headlines always spin things one way or the other. Maybe “Insane Killer Found Not Guilty” would be better than the new headline, which doesn’t really communicate the reason for the verdict.
Oh I get that they’re “not guilty”, and that there is a certification process involved — but I don’t think that such a process in any way satisfies the need for justice. Likewise I also don’t — especially don’t — buy the notion often put forward in sentencing submissions that because someone got drunk or high, they were less in control and therefore should get a lighter punishment. Unlike Jeremy, I don’t think this state of affairs should remain unquestioned by un-lettered helots such as myself, so see nothing wrong with the facts of the headline.
Interestingly the defendant apparently had been released from a mental facility some days earlier; clearly there’s something wrong there. Just as that cretin Rowntree who went on a crime spree the other week in Melbourne had won an early release. (I notice you were silent about that case, given that it puts the lie to your assurances that criminals sich as Rowntree, who was previously described as a devious serial offender, are perfectly fine if they’re in the community on some sort of supervision order). Again, we need to ask just who we’re being compassionate towards: the criminally inclined, or the community?
“Oh I get that they’re “not guilty”, and that there is a certification process involved — but I don’t think that such a process in any way satisfies the need for justice. “
You think it would be “justice” to punish people for something that they were clinically incapable of controlling or stopping?
“the notion often put forward in sentencing submissions that because someone got drunk or high, they were less in control and therefore should get a lighter punishment.”
That would be a fairly stupid submission and unlikely to work. I suspect that your use of the expression “often” is a wild exaggeration not backed up by any sort of actual evidence or experience.
The only real way such a submission would have a hope of positively influencing a judicial officer would be on the grounds of likelihood of reoffending, eg if someone was stealing to feed a heroin habit and since they committed the offence they have completely come off the heroin and rebuilt their life.
Makes perfect sense if the aim is to reduce reoffending.
I’d also like to know what your answer to Mondo’s question is.
Well, I don’t know things work in Victoria, but here in NSW, intoxication can be used as a defence: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/73743ad740a21924ca2574f00018c766/$FILE/E-Brief%20Intoxication%20and%20the%20Criminal%20Law.pdf
Key bit: “The question raised by intoxication (self-induced or otherwise) is whether the criminal act was performed in a state of impaired consciousness and therefore could not be defined as voluntary.”
This is not about a Les Miserables-type situation, stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving heroin habit.
‘You think it would be “justice” to punish people for something that they were clinically incapable of controlling or stopping?’
That would depend on whether they previously had taken steps to prevent that illness (meds) or addictions (detox,rehabs) from causing detriment to their, or anyone elses lives.
Killing another human being is a LOT different than stealing a dvd player for smack, or a schizophrenic shoplifting believing that they actually owned the shop (which is what happened to my daughter’s mother)
BTW, I agree with your original comment re. the headline…news should be reported as news, not with opinion and subjective bias added to it.