Insanity pleas need to GO AWAY........

[Tyme2fish]

Another opinion I share with Mr Fisher, except for the torture part, regardless of his mental state people like this have no business being turned loose on the rest of us ever again and I am personally an advocate of the death penalty, my only gripe about capital punishment is we don't do is use it enough.

Or soon enough. Twenty years for appeals? Forget it.

[kygorski]

You are innocent till proven guilty!! I some countries you will not even be arrested, till there is some proof.Here its arrest them, then find the evidence. I'm not against the death penalty,in cases where there is absolute proof, do it. But what happens when someone who is later proven innocent? Isn't that also a crime? So who is the criminal? I have a personal reason for studying this, and there are a lot of cases where innocence is later proven.There are even some questionable executions not many, but one is too many.Then who is the criminal? The guy in colorado is guilty of killing a lot of people, there isn't much doubt he did it, so execute him, lame crippled or crazy,he's guilty, who cares why he did it, that can be resolved whether he's alive or dead.The boston bombing, he admitted it, but in this case, killing him would make him a maryter, life no parole would be a fitting resolution.

[GeoFisher]

You are innocent till proven guilty!! I some countries you will not even be arrested, till there is some proof.Here its arrest them, then find the evidence. I'm not against the death penalty,in cases where there is absolute proof, do it. But what happens when someone who is later proven innocent? Isn't that also a crime? So who is the criminal? I have a personal reason for studying this, and there are a lot of cases where innocence is later proven.There are even some questionable executions not many, but one is too many.Then who is the criminal? The guy in colorado is guilty of killing a lot of people, there isn't much doubt he did it, so execute him, lame crippled or crazy,he's guilty, who cares why he did it, that can be resolved whether he's alive or dead.The boston bombing, he admitted it, but in this case, killing him would make him a maryter, life no parole would be a fitting resolution.

DUDE.......that has nothing to DO what what I posted.

He is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity............SCREW THAT.

Not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity are the same thing to me.......NOT GUILTY.

By adding the by reason of insanity, it changes the metrics by which the players play the game, and I hate that. We don't say not guilty because I had a bad day, or not guilty because the dude I killed was an *******. Why not guilty by reason of insanity.

I hate that political correct ********.

Later,

Geo

[RoadToad]

The problem as I see it is not the existence of a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" plea, but the way they are handled. Or maybe it should be changed to read, "Guilty, but insane." Because the problem is, if you're found "Not guilty by reason of insanity," then you're just that.. not guilty. You're committed to a mental institution until such time as you are deemed "rehabilitated," and then you are cut loose, with no criminal record, no nothing. If you truly are so insane that you don't know right from wrong, and end up killing someone as a result, I don't think you should be executed, but I don't think you should be just turned loose back into society to go kill again, either. There need to be some kind of lifelong consequences, something in place to protect the rest of us.

[jcb]

There are some jurisdictions that do have a "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) option for juries. It's used when the jury feels that the person is definitely mentally ill, but that illness is not severe enough to be absolved from all criminal responsibility.