PC Gone Overboard - For Real

[Jeremy]

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

Fair point, Jeremy. Not a popular one, but an accurate one.

However, if people with "severe mental illnesses" are disqualified from the ability to purchase firearms, the sellers of firearms have to have the ability to find out if their potential customer suffer from "severe mental illness" somehow. The only option is a database that can be checked. (I imagine selling a gun to a known crazy who then shoots people can result in one nice lawsuit against the gun seller.)

Advocates for the mentally ill are more afraid of the misuse of such a database, I imagine. Also, knowing that you're going to be put in a database could prevent a lot of "voluntary" committments from people seeking help; or "involuntary" committments by family members who will fear that if the person gets the help they need, they'll never find employment again with their name in a database.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a very good idea, as the case given in the article more than proves. It's also federal law. Now...how to do it?

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

Really simple. Insane people should not own guns ESPECIALLY if they already used them to kill someone. I'm pretty pro-gun but mentally unstable people, any use of mental capacity to be excused from a crime, should not have guns and neither should violent criminals (felony violence of any kind) as well.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Really simple. Insane people should not own guns ESPECIALLY if they already used them to kill someone. I'm pretty pro-gun but mentally unstable people, any use of mental capacity to be excused from a crime, should not have guns and neither should violent criminals (felony violence of any kind) as well.

Of course they shouldn't purchase / own guns. The issue is *how* to stop them from doing so. Unconvicted people have no place on a criminal DB.

Mental illness isn't just a binary / 0-1 situation. So, before you get to putting names on a list, you've also got to consider the degrees of illness and whether their illness has been cured. Maybe just start with NGRI's & other involuntarily institutionalised people and go from there?

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Of course they shouldn't purchase / own guns. The issue is *how* to stop them from doing so. Unconvicted people have no place on a criminal DB.

Mental illness isn't just a binary / 0-1 situation. So, before you get to putting names on a list, you've also got to consider the degrees of illness and whether their illness has been cured. Maybe just start with NGRI's & other involuntarily institutionalised people and go from there?

If you read my post carefully it only uses people who have used mental illness as an excuse to try and get out of a crime or have been found guilty of a felony charge that includes violence that can be non-gun related.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

If you read my post carefully it only uses people who have used mental illness as an excuse to try and get out of a crime or have been found guilty of a felony charge that includes violence that can be non-gun related.

Are you saying there should be no such thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

[sudden]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Are you saying there should be no such thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

There should be a "guilty by reason of instanity", sentancing people to care - then prison sentance immediatley after they're declared well. That way, few people would fake insanity, to try to get off in 2-3 years.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by sudden

There should be a "guilty by reason of instanity", sentancing people to care - then prison sentance immediatley after they're declared well. That way, few people would fake insanity, to try to get off in 2-3 years.

First of all, the number of people who can successfully fake insanity to escape criminal charges is laughable - it's a defense that is successful less than 2% of the time. Generally, it's a desperation defense.

Second, if you take most mentally ill people out of a care environment and put them in prison, you're going to have a mentally ill person again within a pretty short time. Prison officials haven't got the time, resources, or training to deal with the mentally ill.

Third and finally - if the mental illness is what caused them to commit the crime, and the mental illness is cured - why treat them the same way as the criminal who did have the ability to distinguish right from wrong? (Please note I did NOT say they necessarily should be let loose on the community, or should ever be unsupervised.)

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Are you saying there should be no such thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

No, I am saying people who use that defense have no business owning a gun!!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

Being found "not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same thing as being found not guilty.

Not guilty means the (jury, judge) doesn't think you did it.

Not guilty by reason of insanity means the (jury, judge) thinks you did it, but can't be held responsible for your actions because of mental disease or defect. A person found not guilty by reason of insanity generally doesn't go home; they are usually institutionalized.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Being found "not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same thing as being found not guilty.

Not guilty means the (jury, judge) doesn't think you did it.

Not guilty by reason of insanity means the (jury, judge) thinks you did it, but can't be held responsible for your actions because of mental disease or defect. A person found not guilty by reason of insanity generally doesn't go home; they are usually institutionalized.

Not guilty simply means it hasn't been proven that you did it - it doesn't neccessarily mean you did or didn't do it (OJ!).

To be guilty of something, you have to have mens rea. Without that, you cannot be guilty.

NGRI is a very specific reason for not being found guilty, because you end up failing on mens rea, which ultimately means you cannot have committed a criminal action.

That is why it's not "Guilty But Hat-Stand", and more importantly, it's definitely not "Innocent".

It's only a hair's breadth of difference, but it is an important one, as John Hinckley's case shows. It tends to mean you say "I did it, but I was insane", so of course, you end up locked away because you've acted in an insane manner rather than because you have done something criminal.

Anyway ... this is all by the by really, nutters shouldn't have access to guns.