8 Year Old Girl Murdered (1 Viewer)

[Jiga]

First of all it is very hard to prove. The test is whether at the time of the committing of the act, the accused was (1) labouring under such a defect of reason, from (2) disease of the mind, so as (3A) not to know the nature of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that (3B) he did not know what he was doing was wrong. If any one of those factors is not met, they will not be successful.

That doesnt seem that 'hard to prove' at all. I dont know to much about all of this law bullshit (I think alot of 1st/2nd year Law students posting dont know to much either!), but I can only assume proving you have a disease of the mind wouldnt be all that hard because its something thats intangible and considering the crime it wouldnt be suprising if he was a nut or in anycase, could go down that path as a defence. How exactly do they RELIABLY disprove he has a mental illness (I would think this would be quite difficult)!? And then on top of this, as long as he did not know what he was doing is wrong, its all ok if he has a supposed mental illness. So he can rape and murder again as long as he doesnt know its wrong

This does not give me any great convidence in our legal system.

EDIT:

Furthermore once I read:

Thirdly, if someone truly is affected in such a way as the test prescribes above, then they are not morally to blame. Morality requires free will. If someone does something without knowing what they are doing, they do not willfully do that act. In legal terms, they lack the mens rea/intent to do the crime.

Who cares if the person has a mental illness that means they didnt know what they were doing. Ive been led to believe that the point of jails is to put away people who are a danger to society. How, is someone affected by mental illness, any less of a danger to society!? Tell me this. I would think they are MORE of a danger, they dont have the ability to equate such appauling acts as being wrong as any other human being.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

That doesnt seem that 'hard to prove' at all. I dont know to much about all of this law bullshit (I think alot of 1st/2nd year Law students posting dont know to much either!), but I can only assume proving you have a disease of the mind wouldnt be all that hard because its something thats intangible and considering the crime it wouldnt be suprising if he was a nut or in anycase, could go down that path as a defence. How exactly do they RELIABLY disprove he has a mental illness (I would think this would be quite difficult)!? And then on top of this, as long as he did not know what he was doing is wrong, its all ok if he has a supposed mental illness.

Actually it is very hard to prove. To show a disease of the mind, you would need psychological evidence from professionals to stand any hope of succeeding. That is, expert testimony from specialists in mental illness.

And that is surely the most reliable way to discern the truth of their claims, isn't it? Otherwise how do you determine whether they are insane or not?

So he can rape and murder again as long as he doesnt know its wrong

This does not give me any great convidence in our legal system.
...

Who cares if the person has a mental illness that means they didnt know what they were doing. Ive been led to believe that the point of jails is to put away people who are a danger to society. How, is someone affected by mental illness, any less of a danger to society!? Tell me this. I would think they are MORE of a danger, they dont have the ability to equate such appauling acts as being wrong as any other human being.

You obviously didn't read my comments. If you are found to be mentally ill, you are not released back into society. You are put before the Medical Health Review Tribunal and you are subject to an indeterminate length of detention.

 

[Jiga]

Actually it is very hard to prove. To show a disease of the mind, you would need psychological evidence from professionals to stand any hope of succeeding. That is, expert testimony from specialists in mental illness.

I fail to see how this would be 'very hard' still..... provided the suspect has done his research Im sure there are cases where people have fooled the specialists, and as a result get the evidence they need!

And that is surely the most reliable way to discern the truth of their claims, isn't it? Otherwise how do you determine whether they are insane or not?

Not really. Its quite possible for a sane person to fake their insanity.

You obviously didn't read my comments. If you are found to be mentally ill, you are not released back into society. You are put before the Medical Health Review Tribunal and you are subject to an indeterminate length of detention.

Well it is a lesser sentence isnt it? Do they deserve this just because they didnt know what they were doing? The victim is still as dead as they would be if it were a sane person doing it. And at the end of the day, they are still a danger to society, if not MORE so, than a sane person.... and potentially they are a danger for the rest of their lives because they dont see what they did as wrong!

There shouldnt be any privledges for those who are mentally ill IMO at least.

And what is 'detention'? We dont have loony bins in Australia do we? This detention doesnt involve IN ANY CASE just reporting to a medical professional at regular intervals does it and taking perscribed medication? Because thats hardly protecting society.

EDIT:

Also interesting to see a ninemsn poll, although it isnt worth a grain of salt, but nonetheless relating to capital punishment. A majority, 22,000 compared to 5000 have voted yes to crimes against children being punishable by death

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Also interesting to see a ninemsn poll, although it isnt worth a grain of salt, but nonetheless relating to capital punishment. A majority, 22,000 compared to 5000 have voted yes to crimes against children being punishable by death

The masses can often be wrong and need direction from the people in society whom (at least think) they understand something a bit better than the masses. If we allowed TRUE popularism to decide all of our decisions all the time our country would be an absolute mess.

Not really. Its quite possible for a sane person to fake their insanity.

He asked for another way. I am sure he is well aware that there is a problem there, however there's still the judge/jury to take that evidence with some discretion.

Well it is a lesser sentence isnt it?

Lesser? If what you're after is retribution, then yes. However IMO it is a superior sentence because it is more just, a person that is mentally ill should be redeemed through diagnosis/assistance with his mental problem, just as someone whom is not mentally ill, just an asshole, should be redeemed in gaol to understand that it's wrong to be an asshole.

The victim is still as dead as they would be if it were a sane person doing it.

It's not necessarily about the victim getting justice, it's about society getting justice. The idea is to create a fairer society, not just to help people get even.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Actually it is very hard to prove. To show a disease of the mind, you would need psychological evidence from professionals to stand any hope of succeeding. That is, expert testimony from specialists in mental illness.

And that is surely the most reliable way to discern the truth of their claims, isn't it? Otherwise how do you determine whether they are insane or not?

I fail to see how this would be 'very hard' still..... provided the suspect has done his research Im sure there are cases where people have fooled the specialists, and as a result get the evidence they need!
...
Its quite possible for a sane person to fake their insanity.

1. They are experts. They are not fooled easily.

2. More to the point, you didn't answer my question, which is fundamental to the whole issue. I asked whether this was the best way to test whether someone has a mental illness. If practicing psychologists and psychiatric experts are no good, what better way is there? Until you come up with an answer, you have no justification in criticising the current practice.

You obviously didn't read my comments. If you are found to be mentally ill, you are not released back into society. You are put before the Medical Health Review Tribunal and you are subject to an indeterminate length of detention.

Well it is a lesser sentence isnt it? Do they deserve this just because they didnt know what they were doing? The victim is still as dead as they would be if it were a sane person doing it. And at the end of the day, they are still a danger to society, if not MORE so, than a sane person.... and potentially they are a danger for the rest of their lives because they dont see what they did as wrong!

Hold on, you are confusing two issues.

The first is their moral liability - whether they are ethically at fault for their actions. As I said, if they do not have control over what they are doing, or do not know what they are doing is wrong, they cannot willfully act immorally. Free will is a precondition to moral responsibility. Thus, if they do not have it, they are not to blame.

The second issue is public protection. That is, even if they are not to blame, is there justification in detaining them to prevent them committing similar offences? The answer is yes, which is why they are put in mental institutions. As I have repeatedly said, they are held for an indefinite period. They do not go free until they are fit and safe for society. Hence the concern over public protection is met. Again, don't confuse the two issues. This second concern has nothing to do with giving them a lesser or greater sentence, because there is no blame attributed. It is only a protective device, not a retributive one.

There shouldnt be any privledges for those who are mentally ill IMO at least.

It is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter of whether they are guilty. To be morally at fault, one must have the intent to do the crime that is alleged. This is the basis of morality -- free will. (Alternatively, intent can be deduced from recklessness or willful blindess, depending on the situation). You seem not to be able to grasp the fact that people are not responsible for matters that are beyond their control.

Allow me to illustrate. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to steal a candy bar or else they will shoot you, you are put under duress where you do not voluntarily intend to do the crime alleged. You are not morally at fault, since you had no choice. Mental illnesses effectively are the same, either through depriving the sufferer from knowledge of what they are doing, or depriving them from controlling their actions, or depriving them from knowing right from wrong, hence removing any ability to choose not to do the wrong thing.

You seem to have problems accepting that mental illnesses exist. Such illnesses do exist and they can have profound consequences for the mind and body. You really should do some research if you honestly think otherwise.

And what is 'detention'? We dont have loony bins in Australia do we? This detention doesnt involve IN ANY CASE just reporting to a medical professional at regular intervals does it and taking perscribed medication? Because thats hardly protecting society.

Detention is imprisonment within a mental institution. That is, they are not released into society. Thus it is clearly protecting society.

Also interesting to see a ninemsn poll, although it isnt worth a grain of salt, but nonetheless relating to capital punishment. A majority, 22,000 compared to 5000 have voted yes to crimes against children being punishable by death

That's completely irrelevant. You're arguing by appealing to majority, a logical fallacy.

 

[Jiga]

The masses can often be wrong and need direction from the people in society whom (at least think) they understand something a bit better than the masses. If we allowed TRUE popularism to decide all of our decisions all the time our country would be an absolute mess.

I dont think they are wrong on this occasion, its the lowest of acts killing a defenceless child. But this debates place is in another thread.

however there's still the judge/jury to take that evidence with some discretion.

Ah I dont think so...... if a medical professional states he has a mental illness, there is no discretion whatsover, its not the juries job to decide whether he is sane or not.

It's not necessarily about the victim getting justice, it's about society getting justice. The idea is to create a fairer society, not just to help people get even.

Its about putting someone who is a dangerous to society behind bars. Now personally, those with mental illness CAN be the most dangerous to society, they dont know what they are doing is wrong.... and fair enough they can take their medication and it will be ok, but how many cases have we heard of people with mental problems failing to do so? It is essentially gambling with peoples lives, which isnt right.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ah I dont think so...... if a medical professional states he has a mental illness, there is no discretion whatsover, its not the juries job to decide whether he is sane or not.

There will usually be different medical professionals arguing different cases, as I understand it.

Its about putting someone who is a dangerous to society behind bars.

Well then argue for enhanced security at mental health facilities imo.

 

[Jiga]

1. They are experts. They are not fooled easily.

2. More to the point, you didn't answer my question, which is fundamental to the whole issue. I asked whether this was the best way to test whether someone has a mental illness. If practicing psychologists and psychiatric experts are no good, what better way is there? Until you come up with an answer, you have no justification in criticising the current practice.

I dont deny it wouldnt be easy, but the potential is their for people who are by all accounts sane to seek refuge via that little test you referred to previously.

My point in relation to point 2 is that there shouldnt be any consideration for whether they are sane or insane...... who really cares, they committed the crime, they do the time. And currently Australia and most other countries go soft on those with mental illness when realistically, people in this situation can be the most dangerous inidividuals to society. And eradication of this would also stop other people from exploiting it.

The second issue is public protection. That is, even if they are not to blame, is there justification in detaining them to prevent them committing similar offences? The answer is yes, which is why they are put in mental institutions. As I have repeatedly said, they are held for an indefinite period. They do not go free until they are fit and safe for society. Hence the concern over public protection is met. Again, don't confuse the two issues. This second concern has nothing to do with giving them a lesser or greater sentence, because there is no blame attributed. It is only a protective device, not a retributive one.

How many cases have there been where someone with an obvious mental illness is released back into society only to re-offend? And does Australia even have mental institutions these days? Either way, they dont deserve to be dealt with softly.

It is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter of whether they are guilty. To be morally at fault, one must have the intent to do the crime that is alleged. This is the basis of morality -- free will. (Alternatively, intent can be deduced from recklessness or willful blindess, depending on the situation). You seem not to be able to grasp the fact that people are not responsible for matters that are beyond their control.

Is it the courts duty to deal with moral issues over a criminal matter...... if you are guilty of killing someone, you go to jail. When the courts start dealing with morality you know you have problems! These issues can be dealt with while the person is behind bars and away from society.

You seem to have problems accepting that mental illnesses exist. Such illnesses do exist and they can have profound consequences for the mind and body. You really should do some research if you honestly think otherwise.

No the issue isnt about accepting mental illness exists.... its about whether they should be dealt with in a different matter to a sane person. I disagree, they remain to be a danger to society, and as I mentioned previously, providing them with scapegoats has only resulted in the past in people who should have been protected being killed by re-offenders who whilst in custody are model citizens as they are administered medication.... its a new ball game when they leave these places after their little short holiday

 

[MoonlightSonata]

1. They are experts. They are not fooled easily.

2. More to the point, you didn't answer my question, which is fundamental to the whole issue. I asked whether this was the best way to test whether someone has a mental illness. If practicing psychologists and psychiatric experts are no good, what better way is there? Until you come up with an answer, you have no justification in criticising the current practice.

I dont deny it wouldnt be easy, but the potential is their for people who are by all accounts sane to seek refuge via that little test you referred to previously.

My point in relation to point 2 is that there shouldnt be any consideration for whether they are sane or insane...... who really cares, they committed the crime, they do the time. And currently Australia and most other countries go soft on those with mental illness when realistically, people in this situation can be the most dangerous inidividuals to society. And eradication of this would also stop other people from exploiting it.

That goes against basic logic. If someone is not guilty of an offence, they should not be locked up. Do you dispute this?

Guilt is more than a guilty act, it is a guilty conscience. As I have said a number of times now, and which you seem to either fail to grasp or have no answer to, moral fault requires free will.

The second issue is public protection. That is, even if they are not to blame, is there justification in detaining them to prevent them committing similar offences? The answer is yes, which is why they are put in mental institutions. As I have repeatedly said, they are held for an indefinite period. They do not go free until they are fit and safe for society. Hence the concern over public protection is met. Again, don't confuse the two issues. This second concern has nothing to do with giving them a lesser or greater sentence, because there is no blame attributed. It is only a protective device, not a retributive one.

How many cases have there been where someone with an obvious mental illness is released back into society only to re-offend? And does Australia even have mental institutions these days? Either way, they dont deserve to be dealt with softly.

1. Yes, Australia does have special fascilities for mentally ill prisoners.

2. You just made the moral claim that "Either way, they dont deserve to be dealt with softly", which again goes against basic logic. You cannot be morally to blame for something if you could not have done otherwise.

It is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter of whether they are guilty. To be morally at fault, one must have the intent to do the crime that is alleged. This is the basis of morality -- free will. (Alternatively, intent can be deduced from recklessness or willful blindess, depending on the situation). You seem not to be able to grasp the fact that people are not responsible for matters that are beyond their control.

Is it the courts duty to deal with moral issues over a criminal matter...... if you are guilty of killing someone, you go to jail. When the courts start dealing with morality you know you have problems! These issues can be dealt with while the person is behind bars and away from society.

It is the courts duty to provide justice according to law. Law is a codified acceptance of socially accepted moral standards. Ergo, the courts deal with morality, in a sense, in everything they do.

You seem to have problems accepting that mental illnesses exist. Such illnesses do exist and they can have profound consequences for the mind and body. You really should do some research if you honestly think otherwise.

No the issue isnt about accepting mental illness exists.... its about whether they should be dealt with in a different matter to a sane person. I disagree, they remain to be a danger to society, and as I mentioned previously, providing them with scapegoats has only resulted in the past in people who should have been protected being killed by re-offenders.

Again, you seem to have immense difficulty in separating the two issues of (1) moral fault; and (2) public protection.

Your whole argument about why mentally ill people should not be treated differently is that they are a danger to society (the public protection point). But this is incorrect, since mentally ill people are not released -- rather they are detained in mental institutions.

 

[Jiga]

That goes against basic logic. If someone is not guilty of an offence, they should not be locked up. Do you dispute this?

Goes against logic..... you kill someone, whether your sane or not, you should go to jail

Guilt is more than a guilty act, it is a guilty conscience. As I have said a number of times now, and which you seem to either fail to grasp or have no answer to, moral fault requires free will.

Guilt is more than an act, you have to be kidding? You kill a person, your guilting, f*ck of to jail. Who gives a crap if they dont have a guilty conscience!! So becuase somone with a mental illness hasnt got a mental conscience we should just let them back into society to re-offend? Like I said, these people need to be kept away from society, before they kill again.

Your whole argument about why mentally ill people should not be treated differently is that they are a danger to society (the public protection point). But this is incorrect, since mentally ill people are not released -- rather they are detained in mental institutions.

They dont get the same sentences as sane people, so they get out earlier, and in cases where a sane person gets put away for life a person with a mental illness doesnt..... creating a danger to society at some point in the future that shouldnt exist.

Thats all Im going to comment now..... its not getting anywhere and Ive made my point clear enough.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Goes against logic..... you kill someone, whether your sane or not, you should go to jail

Guilt is more than an act, you have to be kidding? You kill a person, your guilting, f*ck of to jail. Who gives a crap if they dont have a guilty conscience!! So becuase somone with a mental illness hasnt got a mental conscience we should just let them back into society to re-offend? Like I said, these people need to be kept away from society, before they kill again.

Because you cannot attribute moral blame unless they could have done otherwise. If there was no way to avoid a particular outcome, a person could not choose between doing it and not doing it. If you cannot choose, it is not your fault for doing one thing or another. Do you understand?

And you are again confusing guilt with protection of society. Guilt is not there in certain mental illnesses, and society is protected by means of placing them in detention in a mental institution. But as I have gone over that several times now, I must cease.

They dont get the same sentences as sane people, so they get out earlier, and in cases where a sane person gets put away for life a person with a mental illness doesnt..... creating a danger to society at some point in the future that shouldnt exist.

They are only released when they are deemed safe enough for release.

Thats all Im going to comment now..... its not getting anywhere and Ive made my point clear enough.

Well, with respect, your point has been defeated -- repeatedly. Unfortunately I think you lack the capacity, knowledge or patience to understand why.

 

[frog12986]

I think most would agree that moonlight has proved his point slightly more effectively..:rofl:

I'm not a legal expert but I don't believe that Schoolies_2004 has a grasp of the notion of the temporal coincidence between the mind and the act; the fundamentals of criminal law..

If one takes an act that causes death in relation to self defence as an example. If it is subsequently proved that there is both necessity on the part of the accused and it was a reasonable response in the circumstances (as he/she perceieved them) then this potentially abdicates responsibility on the part of the accused for the act that caused death. Now although death has resulted, the evidence still needs to be presented to support the defence. It isn't a automated defence..

Whilst I understand that in this case is does appear rather cut and dry, that is for the court to decide based upon the evidence presented before it. I very much doubt that the accused was arrested at the scene, hands on the throat of the victim, moments before the victim died. If the Police and DPP undertake their tasks efficiently and effectively, then the accused will face the appropriate consequences.

So often, people will lobby for their rights as individuals economically, but contradict this view with their radical social opinion that really verges upon fascism..

 

[Optophobia]

They are only released when they are deemed safe enough for release.

Yes, they are mentally ill so they are placed in a mental asylum. Then, as if by magic, a few months later.. tudarrrr! Whats this? They are SANE AGAIN! Wow, sheesh, guess its ok to release them back into the community again!!!!! AMAZING RECOVERY I MUST SAY!

 

[wheredanton]

Yes, they are mentally ill so they are placed in a mental asylum. Then, as if by magic, a few months later.. tudarrrr! Whats this? They are SANE AGAIN! Wow, sheesh, guess its ok to release them back into the community again!!!!! AMAZING RECOVERY I MUST SAY!

Those who escape murder convictions on the basis that they are insane are kept in custody at her majesty's pleasure. Historically this has meant forever. Public opinion usually stops these individuals from being released - government will pull strings to ensure the person is kept in custody to keep votes. In any case it seems odd that the defendant would argue so damn hard that he was insane at trial and then argue so damn hard, two years later, then he is suddenly not sane. Doesn't work like that.

If you could point to a case where a person has successfully argued insanity but then has been released 2 years later because they are deemed sane all of a sudden some of us here will accept that your blatant sensationalism and hearty quest to misrepresent the law has some minute iota of credibility. At the moment everyone of your posts make you look more and more clueless.

 

[gerhard]

people are so ridiculous in this thread

most people who plead mental ilness end up spending a longer time in a mental institute than they would have if they just took the jail option, especially for serious crimes. the only benefit is that its probably more comfortable in an asylum than in jail.

 

[Captain Obvious 1]

If you could point to a case where a person has successfully argued insanity but then has been released 2 years later because they are deemed sane all of a sudden some of us here will accept that your blatant sensationalism and hearty quest to misrepresent the law has some minute iota of credibility. At the moment everyone of your posts make you look more and more clueless.

Uh, do they have transcripts of the equivalent of parole hearings for the mentally insane? I don't think so. I think its pretty safe to assume that most of the people who get detained for insanity are released as soon as they magically become sane again. After all, what right does the state have to detain someone against their will? That's against their human rights.

 

[wheredanton]

I think its pretty safe to assume that most of the people who get detained for insanity are released as soon as they magically become sane again. After all, what right does the state have to detain someone against their will? That's against their human rights.

If you read carefully it would be pretty clear that those deemed insane are not deemed sane too quickly, if ever, due to public pressure and probably due to the fact that sanity doesn't shift too quickly.

Historically insanity means life. If you would like to point the NSW cases in which, you believe, a person has taken advantage of insanity only then to be released because he or she is suddenly deemed to be sane then by all means let us know.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Unfortunately that's not the way being mentally ill works, you don't just wake up one day and are fine. I would like one example of someone in australia being found mentally ill in a murder case (Mentally ill, not a tempory loss of mind) then being released within 2 years later BECAUSE they are no longer deemed mentally ill.

You. Will. Not. Find. One.

 

[Jiga]

Well, with respect, your point has been defeated -- repeatedly. Unfortunately I think you lack the capacity, knowledge or patience to understand why.

LOL, my initial point from which this all resulted was that proving insanity isnt that hard.... which was correct

I'm not a legal expert but I don't believe that Schoolies_2004 has a grasp of the notion of the temporal coincidence between the mind and the act; the fundamentals of criminal law.

I understand it.... but it shouldnt really effect the sentencing of an individual, because in either case they are still a danger to society!

Unfortunately that's not the way being mentally ill works, you don't just wake up one day and are fine. I would like one example of someone in australia being found mentally ill in a murder case (Mentally ill, not a tempory loss of mind) then being released within 2 years later BECAUSE they are no longer deemed mentally ill.

You. Will. Not. Find. One.

There are numerous cases where people who have committed criminal acts have been granted conditional and even non-conditional 'leave', which IMO is bad enough even if they are thoroughly examined

most people who plead mental ilness end up spending a longer time in a mental institute than they would have if they just took the jail option, especially for serious crimes. the only benefit is that its probably more comfortable in an asylum than in jail.

Most yes, but what about those few who get their sentences downgraded to manslaughter as a result of diminished responsbility..... surely there is a very real chance these individuals may be released back into society where they can re-offend.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There are numerous cases where people who have committed criminal acts have been granted conditional and even non-conditional 'leave', which IMO is bad enough even if they are thoroughly examined

I don't know what you're talking about - I asked quite clearly for the example I wanted, it was one that you (and people with views like yours) seem to claim is common. Show it, or shut up.