Gun control

[For the love of the game 56]

Just a thought, but what about doing away with this claiming insanity stuff for these creeps pulling these mass shootings off and do not kill themselves before being cought?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Just a thought, but what about doing away with this claiming insanity stuff for these creeps pulling these mass shootings off and do not kill themselves before being cought?

 

What's the problem with claiming insanity?

[jec 427]

Claiming insanity practically never works, so it really isn't worth mentioning. Most of these killers are narcissistic sociopaths who aren't going to get any leniency in their sentencing.

[For the love of the game 56]

What's the problem with claiming insanity?

Absolutely nothing if you are insane. Just think there needs to be tougher restrictions on the plea Through out history it has been uses little with an even lower success rate. I had an artcicle which I thought was showing an increase in usage of this defense in the US when in fact it was the UK. It is apparently on the rise her as well. However it is still hardly ever successfull so I just feel it is perhaps a stall tactic when the defense has no real case. In some cases I feel it is a cop out.

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-31162502.html

 

There is also case going on now in which an Ohio teen is pleading it for a school shooting last winter. From what I read he showed no prior signs of being insane.

 

James Holmes, if he pleads insanity, could get up because the prosicution has to prove he is sane withou the use of their own experts. He might have had a screw lose, but his attack was plan from what I am reading and he even mailed details of the attack he was plan to the pyche he was seeing on campus. Plus he rigged his apartment to explose to kill more people. He was seeing a psych but that does not mean you are insane, issues yes.

[jec 427]

Just think there needs to be tougher restrictions on the plea. Through out history it has been uses little with an even lower success rate.

 

It hardly ever works, so it needs tougher restrictions?

[For the love of the game 56]

It hardly ever works, so it needs tougher restrictions?

 

Its part of what I think is a bigger issue of delay tactics. Getting strick to limit this along with repeated appeals for people on death row could help. I understand the process is intended to get truly inocent people freed and in some cases it works. I dont know but maybe swifter punishment would make something think twice?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I don't see why it would even be a concern. Is it more important to quickly punish people than it is to arrive at the truth?

 

Even in the extremely rare cases where the insanity defense is successful, it's not like they just say, "Oh well, you're insane. We can't do anything. You're free to go." There are still major consequences, they're just gong to be a little bit different than if the defense had not been successful.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I also find it interesting that the argument is put forth that people are going to kill each other just the same even if we got rid of all guns, so you're never going to actually prevent these killings from happening.

 

But then at the same time it is argued that stiffer penalties and a justice system that gives even less of a damn about the rights of the accused will act as a deterrent.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

I also find it interesting that the argument is put forth that people are going to kill each other just the same even if we got rid of all guns, so you're never going to actually prevent these killings from happening.

 

But then at the same time it is argued that stiffer penalties and a justice system that gives even less of a damn about the rights of the accused will act as a deterrent.

 

I don't follow you on the first. It isn't that we aren't ever going to prevent these things from taking place, it's that the issue at hand should be more focused on the "why" these things happen versus the "how" to some extent.

 

As for the second point there, well, I don't agree with it, so he's on his own there.

[For the love of the game 56]

I don't see why it would even be a concern. Is it more important to quickly punish people than it is to arrive at the truth?

 

Even in the extremely rare cases where the insanity defense is successful, it's not like they just say, "Oh well, you're insane. We can't do anything. You're free to go." There are still major consequences, they're just gong to be a little bit different than if the defense had not been successful.

 

No, its not. I will use Holmes again as an example. He had plans of the attack and was busted red handed. If he has no past mental history but was seeing a pysch for depression, wheres the insanity? If he was a law abiding citizin up to that point, its now temp insanity. No cause he had plans, he did not just snap. Put him on trial give him say 2 appeals and be done with it. If the case is not as cut and dry, then allow more by all means.

 

Not every case fits this and I am not saying that.

[For the love of the game 56]

I don't follow you on the first. It isn't that we aren't ever going to prevent these things from taking place, it's that the issue at hand should be more focused on the "why" these things happen versus the "how" to some extent.

 

As for the second point there, well, I don't agree with it, so he's on his own there.

 

My point might not work, not saying it will, just an idea.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

No, its not. I will use Holmes again as an example. He had plans of the attack and was busted red handed. If he has no past mental history but was seeing a pysch for depression, wheres the insanity? If he was a law abiding citizin up to that point, its now temp insanity. No cause he had plans, he did not just snap. Put him on trial give him say 2 appeals and be done with it. If the case is not as cut and dry, then allow more by all means.

 

Not every case fits this and I am not saying that.

 

The problem here is that the trial is what we use to determine things like that. So if you take away options before the trial, how are you going to determine which cases this idea would be applicable to?