Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by T_O_M
and don't get me started on the whole BS about not guilty by reason of insanity.
Regardless of abuses in these verdicts that may occur, the idea is sound. Punishment should be based on level of fault.

Two extreme opposite examples of this are: 1) Max "Mean Man" Jenkins walked over to the man who bought his gal a drink in a bar and said, "This is to teach you never to disrespect me again," and then proceeded to pluck out his eye with his thumb. 2) John "Saintly" Smith unexpectedly went into a epileptic seizure, and while someone approached him intending to help, John's arms flailed uncontrollably, causing his thumb to drive into the face of the helper, blinding him in one eye.

Insanity, when it's for real, would be a lot closer to 2 than to 1, agreed? The point is, it subtracts to some degree from guilt. We don't punish people for the degree of harm that they caused, but rather for the degree to which they are guilty of intentionally, recklessly, or negligently, causing it.


The first example is a crime, the second an accident, and therefore is not a valid example. What's insanity have to do with either example?

I look at insanity like this, if you're truly insane, and commit a horrific murder, all the more reason, not less, to be locked away to protect the public from future harm.
It makes no sense to release anyone from prison early for a crime (due to insanity or maliciousness and/or lack of remorse) when they lack the self-control necessary to refrain from crime later.

Some people choose crime out of maliciousness, others can't help themselves due to the various "defenses" a lawyer might come up with and try to make stick, but either way, they're a danger to society and shouldn't be free to roam.

_______________________________________________________
An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack

LOL