![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 58. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Phillipa on February 2, 2006, at 23:50:45
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail » AuntieMel, posted by Tabitha on February 2, 2006, at 23:22:41
I have to comment I worked parttime in a jail. The psychiatric and medical care is atrocious. They may be given medication but they are not monitored in taking the meds. A lot of prisoners stash their meds or sell them trade them to other prisoners. And meds don't help anti-social personalities as it is a personality disorder not chemical. So what to do I don't know but there needs to better psychiatric treatment in prisons. And as far as theraphy goes I'm no expert on that and don't profess to be but to my knowledge they have AA, NA meetings. Don't know of group theraphy. Maybe pet theraphy for those who qualify. We definitely have problems in this country. Should be a State Mental Hospital or a Prison? I don't know Fondly , Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on February 3, 2006, at 0:44:23
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail, posted by Phillipa on February 2, 2006, at 23:30:28
Oh no I said I'd never post on this board. Politics is not my thing. Go gently on me guys Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by James K on February 3, 2006, at 0:56:36
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail, posted by Phillipa on February 3, 2006, at 0:44:23
I believe there is a difference between crazy neutortic and crazy psychotic. I personally don't believe Yates was Psychotic. If I killed some stupid *ss m*therfucker because I think he needed it, My state wouldn't give f*ck one about me. I don't like double standards and i don't really believe she killed her children because the FBI implanted a chip in her head and she needed to wear tinfoil to protect her thoughts. I've been acused of psychosis by c*nt bitch *ss pschiatrists, and they were wrong. I knew exactly what I was doing and why. People just wouldn't agree with my reasoning. Yates had her reasons. And full use of her functioning. She took the easy way out, just like a black man who robs a liquor store and shoots the Korean shop clerk knew what he was doing and, caught up in circumstances, made the ultimate bad choice. We kill them on a weekly basis around here, and I don't see the difference for her. By the way, my mother had post partum depression and ate a bottle of valium after I was born, but she survived. If she had tried to kill me, I would want the bitch dead.
Put her in Rusk, Put her in Huntsville, they are both hell. if you have a problem or don't.
James K
Posted by James K on February 3, 2006, at 4:52:10
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail, posted by James K on February 3, 2006, at 0:56:36
perhaps no less sane, or sober, but more calm. Her children's services were in my daughter-in-law's church. I just fired one of her psychiatrists. I was raised in a religious cult. I've been in some of the same institutions and courtrooms as her. I never bought her story from the first time I heard it. My judgment. Also the judgment of the first jury. A corrupt and incompetent expert witness makes us do it all again. She was better off where she was than to sit through the whole trial situation again. Mothers killing their children is just another murder. Every murderer has a reason and every murderer is somewhat insane. I truly believe that. I get angry when we make distinctions that seem to be based upon age/race/class/access to diagnosis of perp or victim. If I'm willing to kill myself for what I've done, then people who've done worse should step up.
imho
james
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 3, 2006, at 16:18:19
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 23:14:03
> But then I am a determinist. And I also believe that if I had Hitlers genes and environment then I would have all his experiences and I would have done everything that he did do.
>
> Once again... Prevention of reoffending and rehabilitation.
>
I agree with what you've said about Hitler, though I'm not calling myself a determinist because of it.> Too radical yet?
I'm not sure what you mean. Radical means "from the roots" I guess if you're labelling yourself something, and not deviating from it's theories then it's technically radical, though I think that's actually very conservative thinking no matter whether it's determinism, or fundamentalist religion.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 3, 2006, at 20:52:13
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on February 3, 2006, at 5:32:58
> I agree with what you've said about Hitler, though I'm not calling myself a determinist because of it.
So... Hitler's behaviour was determined by his genes and his environment but other peoples isn't?
I'm not really a determinist... It is possible that there is a genuine indeterminacy at the sub-atomi level and it is possible that that indeterminacy 'percolates up' to the macroscopic level as well... But in an indeterministic world you just replace:
genes + environment (determine)-> beliefs + desires and other mental states (determine)->behaviour
with
genes + environment (determine the probability of various outcomes) -> beliefs etc etc.
> > Too radical yet?
> I'm not sure what you mean. Radical means "from the roots"I didn't know that. Although... I am getting the feeling that someone here has told me that before. Maybe... It was you? I can be a slow learner sometimes.
> I guess if you're labelling yourself something, and not deviating from it's theories then it's technically radical, though I think that's actually very conservative thinking no matter whether it's determinism, or fundamentalist religion.
I guess I've heard the term 'radical' to dennote 'extremists'. So... Greenpeace activists are 'radical' in the sense that they are VERY left wing. And people who are very much to the right sometimes describe themselves as radical too.Maybe I was thinking... That my views aren't likely to be shared by the majority of people. They would find them too 'out there'.
I dunno. Too hungover...
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 3, 2006, at 22:01:22
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on February 3, 2006, at 20:52:13
> > I agree with what you've said about Hitler, though I'm not calling myself a determinist because of it.
>
> So... Hitler's behaviour was determined by his genes and his environment but other peoples isn't?
>
No. That's not what I'm saying, about it..believe Hitler was mad, what he did that consumed his life, it was his sole purpose.. I think many crimes are a matter of choice.
> I'm not really a determinist... It is possible that there is a genuine indeterminacy at the sub-atomi level and it is possible that that indeterminacy 'percolates up' to the macroscopic level as well... But in an indeterministic world you just replace:
>
> genes + environment (determine)-> beliefs + desires and other mental states (determine)->behaviour
>
> with
>
> genes + environment (determine the probability of various outcomes) -> beliefs etc etc.
>
> > > Too radical yet?
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean. Radical means "from the roots"
>
> I didn't know that. Although... I am getting the feeling that someone here has told me that before. Maybe... It was you?No, it wasn't me.
>
> > I guess if you're labelling yourself something, and not deviating from it's theories then it's technically radical, though I think that's actually very conservative thinking no matter whether it's determinism, or fundamentalist religion.
>
>
> I guess I've heard the term 'radical' to dennote 'extremists'. So... Greenpeace activists are 'radical' in the sense that they are VERY left wing. And people who are very much to the right sometimes describe themselves as radical too.
>Yes that's it, they go to the very roots of their belief, and are extreme because of it
and yet, I think the thought may be uncommon, the thinking behind them is still very conservative when one adheres themselves to pre established ideas. No matter what they are.
> Maybe I was thinking... That my views aren't likely to be shared by the majority of people. They would find them too 'out there'.
>
> I dunno.It would have surprised me if it had been the case.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2006, at 4:57:31
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on February 3, 2006, at 22:01:22
> ...believe Hitler was mad, what he did that consumed his life, it was his sole purpose.. I think many crimes are a matter of choice.so hitler was victim to his genes / environment whereas other people are not? what is 'choice' if it is not behaviour that is determined on the basis of ones beliefs and desires? and if ones beliefs and desires are caused by something outside of our control (our genes and environment) then even our 'choices' are determined by factors outside our control.
I think... that is the way it goes for everybody. that is why I don't believe in retribution...
> Yes that's it, they go to the very roots of their belief, and are extreme because of it
> and yet, I think the thought may be uncommon, the thinking behind them is still very conservative when one adheres themselves to pre established ideas. No matter what they are.maybe we are using the terms a bit differently....
how have you been? haven't chatted to you in a while...
Posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 13:00:05
In reply to Some more » James K, posted by James K on February 3, 2006, at 4:52:10
But even her doctors had diagnosed her as psychotic and delusional.
The prosecution never even tried to argue that she *wasn't* mentally ill. They just hinged things on the bizarre Texas definition of knowing "right" from "wrong."
She knew what she did was illegal. She just believed will all her might that it was "right" to send her kids off to heaven before her bad mothering could "corrupt" them.
I think she was convicted for two reasons - the witness (Dietz again...) who testified that she he had consulted in a "Law and Order" show exactly like what she did that had aired the week before. Error? I doubt it - the episode never existed.
The other reason she was convited was the prosecution "said" they were trying her for the death penalty. What that gave them was an unfair advantage in that the jurors were first vetted to be sure that there weren't any anti death penalty people in the jury pool. What that also gave them was people that were also more likely to not believe in an insanity defense at all and more likely to vote for conviction.
"Not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same as "not guilty." The person doesn't go free - they are involuntarily committed to a mental hospital until the doctors - and the law - agree that she is well.
With her notoriety she would never be released.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 13:04:09
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail, posted by Phillipa on February 2, 2006, at 23:30:28
I'll go gently on you.
I agree - jails and prisons are horrid places for the mentally ill.
She needs meds for her psychosis - plus she needs therapy when her meds work to be able to (maybe) be able to place the blame for her kid's death on her disease and not on herself.
The system failed her miserably. And so did her family I think.
Posted by James K on February 4, 2006, at 13:15:34
In reply to Re: Some more » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 13:00:05
Hinkley has unsupervised weekend visits. Yoko has to campaign to keep Chapman in every couple of years. The guy who clawed his girlfriends eyes out is free. I believe in the death penalty, although not in the justice system that administers it. If the prosecutors and their paid witness hadn't made a (what seems impossible) mistake, this would be all over. One of my points is that we seem to allow insanity to make a difference only for some women and few men. In the big picture they are all just more small tragedies. We all have our personal hells and some people's are way worse than others. I think the issue of post-partum depression is too sensitive for me to be making comments on. I was in a state of fury when I posted my comments. Not a proper time to post. I fear I will end up in jail some day, and no one will care, and my history of mental illness will play no role in my trial, sentence, or treatment in prison. So I'm jealous beforehand. Like I said, the issue is too personal to me. I won't argue with anyone's opinion because I don't know what to say that justifies my wish for the death penalty for this woman and all the others who have followed her example lately. If you want to continue discussing or even answer some of what I say, please do. I will read respectfully, but probably not comment because I am clouded by hate.
James K
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 4, 2006, at 15:33:29
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2006, at 4:57:31
and if ones beliefs and desires are caused by something outside of our control (our genes and environment) then even our 'choices' are determined by factors outside our control.
>
> I think... that is the way it goes for everybody. that is why I don't believe in retribution...
>I really don't know. I don't know how I could know, I think about it a lot.
I've often thought about how limited diagnoses are and how what is seen as someone being plain cruel, or mean, and deserving of punishment is perhaps really no more in the person's control than someone having brown hair.We all have aspects of our personality we can't seem to fight, and I wonder if they have the same trouble, and with no more ill intent, but because those traits cause harm to others, they are judged.
If I "lose it" I'll start crying uncontrollably in the supermarket, if they "lose it" they beat someone to death....
Even if that was the case, If I knew for sure, I still wouldn't know how I feel about retributive justice, or how much is reasonable to expect. I think it's too easy to ponder these ideas in theory, but not have been devastated by the actions of someone who may not have been able to control it.
If someone hurt me I could forgive them, but if someone tortured someone I love, or a helpless animal I'm not sure I could.I'm just glad I'm not in the position to have to make a decision on it for others.
> how have you been? haven't chatted to you in a while...
>
Yeah, I've been a little preoccupied.. to long a story to get into though.You?
Posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2006, at 2:02:04
In reply to Re: Andrea Yates made bail » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on February 4, 2006, at 15:33:29
> If someone hurt me I could forgive them, but if someone tortured someone I love, or a helpless animal I'm not sure I could.
that would be hard, yes.
> I'm just glad I'm not in the position to have to make a decision on it for others.yeah. it is a hard one. i have trouble forgiving my parents... it is one thing to have an ideal and another thing to apply it to ones own life.
i hear you there.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 5, 2006, at 13:50:42
In reply to Re: » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2006, at 2:02:04
That's it you know. I think when someone is seen as the underdog, someone who's been victimized and on the bottom of the world's shoe their entire life who lashed out and did something heinous, well let's forgive them.
But what about overfed, racist pompous political figures? Not so easy to forgive, or understand, but that ideal would have to apply to them too.
If someone had decided to apply a little retributive justice to Idi Amin, or slave traders or those responsible for the Pent State killings, you wouldn't see me crying about it, and yet.. in accordance with that ideal, it's no different.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2006, at 16:57:40
In reply to Re: Alex » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on February 5, 2006, at 13:50:42
> That's it you know. I think when someone is seen as the underdog, someone who's been victimized and on the bottom of the world's shoe their entire life who lashed out and did something heinous, well let's forgive them.
> But what about overfed, racist pompous political figures? Not so easy to forgive, or understand, but that ideal would have to apply to them too.I think a lot of that comes from the way we choose to describe them. If we see someone as 'victimised' or 'at the mercy of a horrible illness' or the 'victim of fate' or a 'victim of chance' then we feel better disposed to them.
If we see them as 'overfed' 'racist' 'pompous' 'nasty' etc then we don't feel so well disposed to them.
> If someone had decided to apply a little retributive justice to Idi Amin, or slave traders or those responsible for the Pent State killings, you wouldn't see me crying about it, and yet.. in accordance with that ideal, it's no different.
Yep.
I think... They know not what they do...
Rawls... The Original Position, I think it is called...
(This is different though related. I'll describe it so it might come out a little differently from Rawls)
Imagine that you have a view from nowhere. That is fairly much a god-like point of view. You are disembodied and are kind of looking down on the earth. You have to decide on a system of wealth distribution, a system of government, a system of law etc. And the whole crucial bit is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH PERSON YOU ARE. The thought is that in such a case people would try and arrange things so that nobody was lacking too much. The thought is that... This would be the fairest system.
Would people all agree if everyone had to make the same decision from a god like vantage point?
Don't know.
I think the ideal would be similar than a lot of the current ideals out there.
Of course nobody can do this practically. But the thought is that it is lack of empathy that is the problem...
A main problem in a lot of the inequalities currently.
If you were one of those pompous slave traders... Your father used to do it and you were raised thinking it is acceptable... That doesn't excuse your behaviour (how would you like to be in the position of one of your slaves?). But... It does go some way towards making it understandable / comprehensible...
Regarding forgiveness... I always thought forgiveness was something you had to do for yourself. So you don't become consumed by rage / bitterness.
I think there should be consequences... I think this lady should spend her time in a mental institution. I mean... She obeyed the voices...
Who is to say that the voices won't tell her to kill other people?
Prevention of reoffending...
Also... There need to be fairly predictable consequences for those kinds of acts
because other people do learn vicariously...
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 5, 2006, at 19:55:08
In reply to Re: » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on February 5, 2006, at 16:57:40
> > That's it you know. I think when someone is seen as the underdog, someone who's been victimized and on the bottom of the world's shoe their entire life who lashed out and did something heinous, well let's forgive them.
> > But what about overfed, racist pompous political figures? Not so easy to forgive, or understand, but that ideal would have to apply to them too.
>
> I think a lot of that comes from the way we choose to describe them. If we see someone as 'victimised' or 'at the mercy of a horrible illness' or the 'victim of fate' or a 'victim of chance' then we feel better disposed to them.
>
> If we see them as 'overfed' 'racist' 'pompous' 'nasty' etc then we don't feel so well disposed to them.
>Well yes, but some people are racist, and some do take advantage, and some people have been victimized. It could all be one person.
And it could go on forever, so the people who "choose" to describe someone that way, don't really have a choice because according to determinism their choices are made because of genes and environment..
And the same would go for people who choose retributive justiceI know that you would probably argue that on a technicality, however your own posts show quite clearly how you feel about certain people, and things. I wonder if you would "choose" to feel differently about the way the U.S government is handling their power.
And that would mean that
> > If someone had decided to apply a little retributive justice to Idi Amin, or slave traders or those responsible for the Pent State killings, you wouldn't see me crying about it, and yet.. in accordance with that ideal, it's no different.
>
> Yep.
>
> I think... They know not what they do...
>
> Rawls... The Original Position, I think it is called...
>>
> If you were one of those pompous slave traders... Your father used to do it and you were raised thinking it is acceptable... That doesn't excuse your behaviour (how would you like to be in the position of one of your slaves?). But... It does go some way towards making it understandable / comprehensible...
>I didn't say I didn't understand how it could happen, I understand that very easily actually. What I said was, I wouldn't cry over a little retributive justice, and that stands, that was the sole point I was trying to make in my post.
> Regarding forgiveness... I always thought forgiveness was something you had to do for yourself. So you don't become consumed by rage / bitterness.
>That's not been my personal experience.
To me forgiveness is something more encompassing. I'd have to feel that it was the right thing to do, because things happen to people, and because of people that I will never understand, and I have to remain open to that possibility that some actions are uncontrollable.I could not bridge the gap between saying I have to do this for my own good, and then fool myself into believing it's helped me empathize with someone else's situation. It would have to be more heartfelt.
The other, doing it for myself, I would just call "acceptance"
>
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 5, 2006, at 21:28:17
In reply to Re: Alex » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on February 5, 2006, at 19:55:08
I wanted to remind you that I feel much the same way you do about lots of these people and situations, so I didn't mean to sound accusatory.
I was trying to explain what I see as the reality of the situation.
I mean if I'm to say I feel *no one* should be treated in a certain way, or judged in a specific way then that would include people like George Bush.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 6, 2006, at 8:19:45
In reply to Re: Some more » AuntieMel, posted by James K on February 4, 2006, at 13:15:34
One one hand you say that the insanity defense works better for women than men.
But on the other - the three cases you cited were all men.
My diagnosis is Major Depressive Disorder, recurring. At my darkest point - which was pretty dark - I would never have considered hurting someone else.
But - and both sides of the case agreed - Andrea Yates wasn't "merely" depressed. She had crossed over into psychosis. She was delusional.
The only question at the trial was whether she knew "right" from "wrong." She thought that drowning her kids was "right."
My twisted logic says she was either insane (and what she thought was "right" was really wrong) - or she was not insane (and what she thought was "right" really was right.)
I can't believe the second one.
Posted by James K on February 6, 2006, at 9:07:19
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 6, 2006, at 8:19:45
I've been running off at the mouth some lately. Sometimes on things I have only partial knowledge or understanding of.
I think I meant that females get outpourings of international sympathy. I used those male examples to point out that noteriety doesn't guarantee you will remain behind locked doors.
I don't think any defense is very effective in our state when it comes to a capitol crime. We do more executions than anyone else.
When a man points a gun at someone and pulls the trigger, I think he is insane. Whatever is happening in his head fits somewhere into the dsmv.
I didn't realize the prosecution conceded she was psychotic or delusional. I didn't follow it as day by day as I do some trials. Do you remember when Karla Faye Tucker was executed? I think her gender was the only reason she was singled out for all the attention.
Now with all of the after the fact DNA testing and releases, and the intense scrutiny of cases involving males and females of all races, I think my point (such as it was) makes much less sense than it might have 10 years ago.
I am actually very conflicted about crime and punishment these days because I believe in long terms and even execution for some crimes, but have lost faith in the process. Yates deserves her second trial, because the People's side broke the rules. The conviction was rightly set aside, and since she is not convicted she deserves bail.
If all of this contradicts what I've posted before, and it probably does, it's because I'm using my brain and not my feelings right now.
James K
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 9:53:49
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 6, 2006, at 8:19:45
> The only question at the trial was whether she knew "right" from "wrong." She thought that drowning her kids was "right."
I wish that was the only question at trial. It wasn't though. The jury did not understand Texas law, and it was illegal for anyone in that courtroom to tell them what Texas law really was.
> My twisted logic says she was either insane (and what she thought was "right" was really wrong) - or she was not insane (and what she thought was "right" really was right.)
>
> I can't believe the second one.Sorry, Mel, but in the interest of keeping similar thoughtlines together, I've also pasted in something Gabbi said:
"I'm just glad I'm not in the position to have to make a decision on it for others."
And how would you feel, as a juror, if you made such a significant decision under false pretenses?
Under Texas law, the jury had two "she did it" options. If they found Andrea Yates guilty under the criminal law, she would be sent to a state prison for life without parole. It's the other option that they didn't properly understand. The jury believed that if they found her not guilty by reason of insanity that she would go free. That's not the case. And it was illegal for anyone, even the defense, to raise the actual law in that courtroom. The jury convicted because they thought their choice was life in prison or freedom (according to interviews held after the trial). Instead, Andrea could have been sentenced to a secure psychiatric facility for a term equivalent to that for which whe would be held if she was found to be sane. At least it would have been a place where she could receive proper treatment.
I did look up Texas penal law at the time, but I no longer have the reference on my computer, so it must be in my old hard drive somewhere.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 13:26:49
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 9:53:49
Begging to differ, Lar. (I do live in the same town as the trial, 'ya know)
At the time there was no such thing as life withoug parole in our fair state. If convicted under criminal law they would have had choice of execution or a "life" sentence - which means parole - and the jury would not have been privy to how many years would have to be served before parole came up.
Though you are also right in that the jury - if they didn't already know that not guilty by reason of insanity meant commitment - were not told that she wouldn't go free.
But - the Texas law needs a little updating in the mental illness defense. "Right from wrong" is the *only* thing the jury is allowed to consider and any other mental problems are moot.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
"§ 8.01. INSANITY. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his
conduct was wrong."--------------------
If I had been on the jury and I had made a decision under false pretenses - I'd be one ticked off mama, that's for sure. And you'd probably be able to hear me screaming all the way up there.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 17:20:24
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 13:26:49
> Begging to differ, Lar. (I do live in the same town as the trial, 'ya know)
>
> At the time there was no such thing as life withoug parole in our fair state. If convicted under criminal law they would have had choice of execution or a "life" sentence - which means parole - and the jury would not have been privy to how many years would have to be served before parole came up.Oh, sorry. I was just speaking in context of the decision made....it wasn't the "without parole" part I was thinking about. It was the "life" part of the sentence that mattered.
> If I had been on the jury and I had made a decision under false pretenses - I'd be one ticked off mama, that's for sure. And you'd probably be able to hear me screaming all the way up there.
As I understand it, that's what happened. The jury was very resistant to holding her criminally responsible. They believed her to be insane at the time of her acts, but they thought that would amount to an acquittal. And nobody could correct their collective misunderstanding, because:
Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 46.03.Sec. 1.(e)'The court, the attorney for the state, or the attorney for the defendant may not inform a juror or a prospective juror of the consequences to the defendant if a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity[0] is returned.'
For the life of me, I cannot fathom what justification this clause has. I would think it would be unconstitutional to prevent a jury from fully understanding the decision they've been called on to make.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on February 8, 2006, at 8:00:49
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 17:20:24
Well, it's true that they can't tell the jury what it means.
They also can't tell the jury how many years a person with a "life" sentance has to serve before parole.
How else do you think we get so many sent to the gallows? <sardonic grin>
One reason educated people shouldn't dodge jury duty, I guess.
Posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:03:45
In reply to Re: Some more » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 13:00:05
> > The other reason she was convited was the prosecution "said" they were trying her for the death penalty. What that gave them was an unfair advantage in that the jurors were first vetted to be sure that there weren't any anti death penalty people in the jury pool. What that also gave them was people that were also more likely to not believe in an insanity defense at all and more likely to vote for conviction.
>
> "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same as "not guilty." The person doesn't go free - they are involuntarily committed to a mental hospital until the doctors - and the law - agree that she is well.
>
> With her notoriety she would never be released.Very good points. I've got more to say, but this stands alone, so I won't try to say any of it here.
Posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:15:25
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 17:20:24
> > > Code of Criminal Procedure
> Art. 46.03.Sec. 1.(e)
>
> 'The court, the attorney for the state, or the attorney for the defendant may not inform a juror or a prospective juror of the consequences to the defendant if a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity[0] is returned.'
>
> For the life of me, I cannot fathom what justification this clause has. I would think it would be unconstitutional to prevent a jury from fully understanding the decision they've been called on to make.
>
> LarAin't that quaint? You know why? It's because there's this fiction that the jury should consider the evidence, not the consequences. You know, they should look at the evidence and say, "She was froot loops" or "she knew what she was doing." They shouldn't consider what the consequences would be.
I remember seeing an attorney, in closing statements, say something like, "If you're thinking about the consequences, then you've already made up your mind." I wish I could remember what he really said, because it was a brilliant thing. Anyway, our system does create problems through these fictions. They're very nice stories, that all juries are "our peers" and that the jury considers the evidence without bias, and many times that is the case. Unfortunately, as Auntie Mel pointed out, that's not the case for death penalty cases. They start out with jurors being "qualified" for a death penalty case -- and those that believe in the death penalty strongly enough to vote for it tend to be more likely to vote with the prosecution regardless of the evidence.
By the way, although it wasn't a death penalty case, I did sit on a jury that convicted a man of first degree murder with special circumstances. That experience convinced me that our system, for all its flaws, is fundamentally sound. I have a lot more faith in the system since that experience.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.