incarcerating the mentally ill

[theculturewarrior]

There was a woman in Texas a few years back who drowned her children when she was suffering from psychosis aggravated by a recent pregnancy. She was sentenced to death.

How should the mentally il and mentally handicapped be treated when they break the law? Does one size fit all?

[philothea]

As I have said before, I don't support capital punishment in the present-day United States at all.

I don't really want to hear people's rationales for why some poor, miserable, crazy woman has to be punished further.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Oct 16 2005, 02:38 PM']There was a woman in Texas a few years back who drowned her children when she was suffering from psychosis aggravated by a recent pregnancy. She was sentenced to death.

How should the mentally il and mentally handicapped be treated when they break the law? Does one size fit all?
[right][snapback]760372[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

They should be treated with compassion and be treated. However, if thier condition makes them a danger to people, they still need to be separated from society.

[MichaelFilo]

Yes, capital punishment for drowning your children. I have a question, for anyone who would be opposed, if a psychological attack (like psychosis) were to occur, can we simply say it is alright? Many of today's theories are entrenched in the idea that psychology is removed from spirituality. In what today we would term "OCD", which is caused by damage to the basal ganglia, was termed as demonic temptation by St. John of the Cross (I think it was him). Now, something like psychosis, strangely similar to demonic possession, can it truely be described as nothing but a mental disorder?

I wonder, because it seems in having coined the term psychology, we have felt that it is imperative to remove all of the things usually associated with demonic influence and placed them into a catagory that seperates them. I must wonder, is it prudent to do so? What if psychosis maybe induced by a demon, would it be wrong to put her to death?

I only ask, I am not trying to make a point, but I find it unreasonable to view psychological diseases as seperate from spiritual warfare.

God bless,
Mikey

[philothea]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Oct 16 2005, 06:23 PM']Yes, capital punishment for drowning your children. I have a question, for anyone who would be opposed, if a psychological attack (like psychosis)  were to occur, can we simply say it is alright? Many of today's theories are entrenched in the idea that psychology is removed from spirituality. In what today we would term "OCD", which is caused by damage to the basal ganglia, was termed as demonic temptation by St. John of the Cross (I think it was him). Now, something like psychosis, strangely similar to demonic possession, can it truely be described as nothing but a mental disorder?

I wonder, because it seems in having coined the term psychology, we have felt that it is imperative to remove all of the things usually associated with demonic influence and placed them into a catagory that seperates them. I must wonder, is it prudent to do so? What if psychosis maybe induced by a demon, would it be wrong to put her to death?

I only ask, I am not trying to make a point, but I find it unreasonable to view psychological diseases as seperate from spiritual warfare.
[right][snapback]760505[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't see why if someone was demonically posessed, they should be liable to capital punishment either. If a powerful being makes someone do evil, why are they to be punished the same as a person who wilfully does that same act?

What is the point in capital punishment, anyway? Vengeance? Safety? Punishment? Dissuasion?

[Era Might]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 16 2005, 08:12 PM']What is the point in capital punishment, anyway?  Vengeance?  Safety?  Punishment?  Dissuasion?
[right][snapback]760543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh boy. You just opened a can of worms.

Prepare to be deluged.

:

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 16 2005, 08:12 PM']I don't see why if someone was demonically posessed, they should be liable to capital punishment either.  If a powerful being makes someone do evil, why are they to be punished the same as a person who wilfully does that same act?

What is the point in capital punishment, anyway?  Vengeance?  Safety?  Punishment?  Dissuasion?
[right][snapback]760543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If youi really want to discuss this one [ ] start a new thread, or look up the zillions of previous threads on this topic.

[MichaelFilo]

Agreed, demonic possession should not equate in capital punishment. Of course, I believe that there must be some act of the will to allow a demon to come in, or else, random people without Christianity nearby would have been possessed over the millenia that Christianity stayed near and in Europe. I think it all boils down to free will, although I bet it's easier to excericise without being bombarded by evil.
And whats the point of Capital punishment? You should know, you hate it so much. Certainly not vengance; in fact that is condemned by the Church and in the Bible. Safety, yes, safety is one of the reasons. Of course, not the only reason, but yes. Punishment, yes. Justice is always do, and sadly, abstaining from Justice is a moral plague on any country. I think you could agree to that if you saw a baby being butchered. If we let the murderers loose, then surely, we cannot hope to protect other babies from being murdered (ahh that safety thing again). Also, how much do we value a human life if we don't justly punish the person who took it? I find any murder to be a horrid act against a fellow man. To not justly punish murder is to, quite frankly, devalue the human life that was taken. Dissuasion isn't important, I don't think. Killing people to dissuade others is something gangsters do, not civilized nations. But certainly justice and safety.

God bless,
Mikey

[Socrates]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Oct 16 2005, 03:38 PM']There was a woman in Texas a few years back who drowned her children when she was suffering from psychosis aggravated by a recent pregnancy. She was sentenced to death.

How should the mentally il and mentally handicapped be treated when they break the law? Does one size fit all?
[right][snapback]760372[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Obviously, "one size" does not fit all. Personally, I think the insanity plea tends to be abused by law. The line between "sanity" and "insanity" is not always a clear one, and it's too easy to claim a criminal was not responsible for his actions in order to avoid punishments.

Too many people want to use "insanity" as an excuse for evil. Our culture has way too much of people using "psychology" to explain-away evil behavior.

If it is clear that a violent criminal is clearly, actually mentally ill to the point of not being responsible for his actions, he should at least be sentenced to life for an assylum for the criminally insane.

G. K. Chesterton said something along the lines that it was more dignified for a man to be punished as a criminal than be treated as an "experiment." (It was a lot more clever than that though - perhaps Aloysius can find the quote. )

[Sojourner]

Unfortunately, jails often become repositories for the untreated mentally ill. I've heard this from every jail commander I've ever dealt with. It's not an ideal situation, it's true, and I'm not going to pretend that we even begin to do a good job dealing with the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. Everyone in the system knows it's not the best way to go about doing it, but any sort of "fixes" are costly, and when push comes to shove, it's just not popular to raise taxes, even for things we really should be putting more money into.

This said, there is an increasing sensitivity for the plight of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system, and there are means in place to constructively address mental illnesses which contribute to behavior for which a person could be held criminally liable. These means often hinge on whether a person has been properly diagnosed (which I'm sure you know is not always an easy thing to do, TCW). And it also is incumbent on attorneys for the client to have the time to devote to ensuring their clients get the proper help.

And if you're referring to Andrea Yates (who was the only Texas mother I'm aware of who drowned her five children) she wasn't sentenced to death, although that was an option. She was, according to CNN, sentenced to life in prison in March 2002. There have been a number of cases over the years in which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on what bearing mental illness or retardation should have on whether or not someone is put to death. If you want, I'll pitch this as a story and do a bit of research and post all my findings here. I've kinda been thinking about doing that anyway, pursuant to a conversation I had not so very long ago.

[Socrates]

This all brings up interesting, more general questions.
How does one define "mentally ill"?
How "mentally ill" does one need to be in order to be exempt from punishment.
Does mental illness always exclude evil and guilt?
Should only models of sanity and rationality be considered criminally guilty?

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 16 2005, 07:46 PM']This all brings up interesting, more general questions.
How does one define "mentally ill"? 
How "mentally ill" does one need to be in order to be exempt from punishment.
Does mental illness always exclude evil and guilt?
Should only models of sanity and rationality be considered criminally guilty?
[right][snapback]760579[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
These questions are why I don't think judging "guilt" (in a moral sense) is especially useful. Determine whether someone commited the act or not, and if they did, do whatever is necessary to prevent them from committing that (or similar crimes) in the future.

God will take care of any required justice.

[photosynthesis]

I too think that the insanity plea is used more often than it should.. although there are cases where people are so out of touch with reality that they are not responsible for what they do. Safety must be the 1st concern in this case.

Unfortunately, many of these crimes can be prevented when people have adequate healthcare in the first place!!! Many mental illnesses can be treated successfully and this could prevent such crimes.

but under NO circumstances should they put the criminally insane people in with the non-criminals. I've seen this happen in adolescent psych units, they put the juvenile delinquents who were there for attempted murder and rape in with other people who were just sick and never did anything wrong.

[Carrie]

Just a note on the insanity plea.

Many people think that pleading insanity and winning is easy. It's actually very very difficult to use such a plea successfully.

Secondly, when one pleads insane and "gets off" it does not mean they are set free. Most times, when someone uses the insanity defense, they are put into a forensic hospital until they are "well enough" to stand trial.

It is nothing like what Hollywood makes it out to be.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Oct 17 2005, 08:28 AM']Just a note on the insanity plea.

Many people think that pleading insanity and winning is easy.  It's actually very very difficult to use such a plea successfully.

Secondly, when one pleads insane and "gets off" it does not mean they are set free.  Most times, when someone uses the insanity defense, they are put into a forensic hospital until they are "well enough" to stand trial.

It is nothing like what Hollywood makes it out to be.
[right][snapback]760989[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's all true.

My friend Sam is a defense lawyer and he was telling me not too long ago about a client of his who's got touches of some sort of mental illness. Sam had a sweet deal worked out for the guy, but at the last minute the client freaked out in front of the judge and the deal went off. Now, the guy will have to be examined to find out whether he's competent to assist in his own defense. If he's found incompetent, he'll go to a state hospital and be medicated until such time as he's competent, and from there he'll go through the whole process again. And this is a misdemeanor drug charge.