I sentence you to insanity!

For several years I have avoided this subject in the interests of respecting privacy, but I can’t pass this up.

Some may say insanity is a fate worse than death. So be it. Don’t give her (or him, if it should come up,) any mind-affecting medication. Our tax dollars are not worth helping those who decided to live outside society.

I revel in the thought that both perpetrators might spend decades chased by unshakable pain, unable to form coherent thoughts and bearing an almost unbearable burden of demons from within. Even if they don’t reflect on what they did they won’t be safe.

I’m sick.

You should be medicated, then…

Even if that would expose prison guards to unnecessary danger from psychotic inmates? Some sense of righteous retribution you have there.

On the contrary, guard don’t have to be exposed at all.


Yes, please do. :dubious:

There’s nothing in the article to indicate that the patient is dangerous to guards or to herself. “Psychotic” doesn’t always mean dangerous. She could be catatonic, for all I know.

I’d separate the issue into two categories: aggressive towards others and not. The first, I’d support forced medication (or alternatively, solitary confinment with no medical care, though that’s a bit harsh even for a person with no grasp of reality). The second - let them stay unmedicated if they wish.

I’m not certain I understand…Isn’t it more important that the defendant was mentally competent at the time the crime was committed, rather than during the trial? I have to assume this enforced medication doesn’t preclude an “insanity” plea.

It’s important that the defendant be competent during the trial so that she may participate in her defense. If the defendant’s hallucinating, hearing voices, so paranoid that she thinks her own defense lawyers are out to get her, and so forth, she cannot assist in her defense and is deprived of a fair trial. In America we consider that a bad thing.

No, but if you’re sufficiently crazy at the time of trial, it makes you unable to assist in your own defense, which - at least according to the l33t criminal law education I’ve gotten from Law & Order - is sufficient to avoid a trial. I mean, if the person is nutso enough that they can’t even communicate with their lawyer, then there’s no way to give them a real trial.

Of course, there is also the issue of a state (I think it is Texas -sigh) who wants to medicate a man so he is competent enough to be executed.

How close are we to the point of being able to change a persons brain chemistry to achieve whatever goal we desire?

I’m torn on this subject. I don’t believe in forced medication but I also think that a fair trial is impossible without it. It won’t change the state of mind she was in when she committed the crime, and I’m confident the medication would have a positive effect on the quality of her defense. But forcing medication? Hmmm…that really doesn’t sit right with me.

Isolation, producing the nice side effect of not helping the psychiatric condition of the patient either.

So all inmates with treatable mental illnesses should be put in solitary confinement? Jeez, you must like raising taxes more than I do.

Feel the love…

Guards, nurses, and doctors will still have to interact with them periodically. And people are sent to prisons as a punishment, not to be punished.

Would you like to have a career where the expectation is that you torment people? Or even one where you must witness their continual torment? Even if society decides that such torment is justified, such a job will take a terrible, terrible toll on the person doing it.

Speaking of L&O, I think I just saw a rerun the other day that used this. A crazy guy raped and killed his girlfriend, and when he was about to go on trial he stopped taking his meds and went catatonic. The judge ruled that he could be forcibly medicated so that he could participate in his own defense.

I wonder if there will be a disclaimer at the start of this trial that says, “The events of this trial were based on a Law & Order script.”

Naw, it’s more of an avocation. If you look at my previous posting history I am normally the first person to advocate for humane conditions and against punishments including the death penalty, but that it only because some of those affected aren’t guilty. While I acknowledge the intellectual possibility in this case I just can’t be objective about it, which is another reason I have avoided this topic.

To answer your question, yes, I would sacrifice some of the mental health and safety of prison workers in order to inflict punishment on the guilty. Only problem is, how can you be %100 sure?

Say Ludovic, what’s it like to live in the 17th century?

That’s not the only problem. One other would be why would a person want to be a heartless sadist?