That was a good article. Great topic too, I really wasn't as aware of the particular ins and outs of the defense, or that different states apply it in different ways.
2/3 of the states adopted the convention that the burden of proof on insanity rests with the defense. Twelve states adopted statutes that defined the rule guilty but mentally ill, known as GMI. In the event this type of verdict is rendered in a case the consequence is conviction and a criminal sentence.
I'm wondering what the operating definition of "mentally ill" is in this context even though those found guilty are not sent to a mental health facility. I only wonder because I would think that there are many criminals suffering from conditions that are not, as a general rule, associated with criminal behavior. In such cases I wonder how this affects the public's perception of the majority of individuals who are not criminals, yet suffer from the same illnesses. I also wonder why this application is necessary in criminal cases as these illnesses do not affect the criminals ability to know right from wrong. Such applications could therefore imply that the afflicted criminal is somehow less responsible for the choice they made to commit the crime. I don't see the mental illnesses that I am aware of, especially the "garden variety" types as being mitigating factors in sentencing.
Salem your comments really got me thinking as well: "MH can plead insanity, doesn't mean she can prove it and that is the test. I am a little conflicted about such a plea. If she takes this approach, it is admitting she is guilty as charged. That's a good thing. Then she has to prove that while she is guilty, she did not know what she was doing was wrong at the time that she did it. I don't think she can prove this. So insanity defense won't work and she is flat out charged for committing the murder." Its almost like the insanity plea is an unintentional ploy to get those who do not want to take full responsibility for their actions to plead guilty. Since it is so difficult to prove the insanity plea, it would seem that the perpetrator is stuck behind bars with their foot in their mouth. I don't know if that is good enough for me. I want these perpetrators to stand before a court of law and be judged or addmitt to being fully responsible for the crimes they have been charged with. Unfortunately plea deals prevent full responsibility from being taken, so I guess I will have to settle for diminished capacity pleas as well if it means that the guilty are punished.
Of the mental illnesses that I am aware of, it is the socio and psychopath who are truly incapable of an internalized and integrated sense of right and wrong. But this understanding could be the result of the increased media coverage of the crimes these individuals commit. These men and women do have an intellectual understanding of right and wrong which unfortunately could be what is enabling them to appear normal. I'm thinking that it is illnesses such as schizophenia that render the criminal incapable to connect with reality to varying degrees.
It has been tossed around as a possibility that MH was a victim of the same abuse she is alleged to have committed. In cases where there is extreme abuse in the criminal's background I wonder if the abusive behavior is somewhat seen as "normal" in the small percentage of those victims that become victimizers. I don't know if that kind of thought process is characteristic of a particular mental illness, but unless the secretive nature of the crimes are purely a repetition of the abuse they received as a child it demonstrates the perpetrator knows that what they are doing is wrong.
Salem, I liked the other comment you made in that same post: "Proving insanity is a tricky business. Yates should have never gotten away with it! AND she only got away with it because she is a woman (moo). MH will have a difficult time because she deliberately hid herself and Sandra during the commisison of the crime - therefore clearly showing she knew what she was doing was WRONG at the TIME that she did it. As for not being able to stop herself, I'm not sure what the criteria for proving or disproving this would be. Anyone else have any ideas?"
I don't think that Yates should have gotten off with an insanity plea. I don't know as much as I should about that case, but I think she was able to do so for at least two reasons: 1. Calling the police to report herself and presenting with such an unusual affect in general following her crime, and 2. I think that because her husband prevented her from receiving mental health services she was viewed sympathetically by the jurors as being an abused spouse, not entirely responsible for her actions as they were controlled by her husband. When it comes to the whole "not being able to stop herself", I don't know if there is a certain criteria for that other than the defense attorney's ability to convince a jury that it was so. I think it is the same with proving that a criminal was in such a state of mind that they did not know their actions were "wrong at the time". Logically speaking is it truly possible to determine the mental state of anyone moment to moment? I just don't think that there are scientific ways to prove this and is therefore left to the defense attorney's "razzel dazzel" the jury.
Thinking about Yates, made me think about MH's access to treatment. It has been implied that MH has been under the care of a mental health doctor at some point. For the sake of argument lets assume that the doctor treated MH with psychiatric medications. If MH took those medications to treat her mental disorder(s), the decision to stop taking those medications was made with a sound mind to become unsound. How can a criminal use the insanity plea/guilty but mentally ill defense when they made the decision to stop taking their medications and/or participating in therapy to treat their mental illness? I guess this would be where the prosecution shows off their own little tap dance, I don't know. I would also like to add that I doubt that any mental illness MH had was the cause of these crimes, I'm still among those that do not believe MH is a sociopath. I do wonder if she would have taken responsibility for her treatment would MH would have had more impulse control, insight into her thoughts etc. to combat her urges to commit this horrific crime.