I watched this program on the show “Frontline” on PBS the other night. Ralph Tortorici was insane when he held some people hostage in a school in New York in 1994. Everybody involved knew it, but went ahead and tried him as sane anyway. The prosecution and judge blamed the law and each other. The assistant DA, Cheryl Coleman, didn’t want to try him, but her boss ordered her to.
The man was sick, no different than if he had had cancer or heart disease or whatever. He was not responsible for his actions, and it was obvious that he wasn’t. If someone had a heart attack, went off the road, and injured another person he wouldn’t be held criminally responsible, so why this man? I heard all of their excuses, and I ain’t buying it. Some people have no guts. :mad:
Did any of you see this show, and what did you think?
Peace,
mangeorge
The insanity defense is to legal logic what autoimmune diseases are to the body’s defenses against infection.
If you do something, it may or may not be illegal. Courts exist in order to determine if you did in fact do an illegal act you are alleged to have committed.
If you do something illegal, you either do it of free will or you were coerced. (So says the conventional law. If I hold a gun to your head and make you hand over the money in the till, you are generally not considered to be an accomplice in the robbery.)
If you do something illegal of your own free will, you may or may not have known that it was illegal, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. If it is illegal to drive a blue car on Tuesdays in New Jersey and you do so, and get arrested for it, you’re in trouble even if you didn’t know it was against the law.
If you do something illegal of your own free will, regardless of whether you did or did not know it was a violation of the law, you may or may not feel that what you did was morally wrong. If it is illegal to drive a blue car on Tuesdays in New Jersey, the fact that you don’t perceive any particularly compelling moral sensibility that makes it a bad thing to drive a blue car on Tuesdays in New Jersey is, if anything, even less relevant than whether or not you knew it to be against the law.
Now, if you lack COMPETENCY, that (unlike “insanity”, i.e., the “ability to know right from wrong”) is a legal question and therefore has bearing in this case. If you are for any reason incapable of making rational decisions, such that you are in need of a guardian, are not free to come and go as you please, cannot sign a legally binding contract, cannot vote, cannot consent to sex, etc etc, there is a legal mechanism for determining whether or not this is the case and if it is, I don’t believe you can be held liable for your actions any more than a 2 year old who finds her Dad’s butcher knife is prosecuted for murder if she picks it up and fatally cuts her sibling in the neck with hit.
The determination of competency does not and should not involve references to proven or alleged medical moral or mental conditions aside from the ability to process information coherently and to make decisions that would seem explicable in terms of the reasons given for making them. If incompetency cannot be determined without reference to “sickness”, it does not apply.
Being weird, having a different chemical balance in one’s head, and/or possessing a history of psychiatric diagnosis of something like “paranoid schizophrenic” are irrelevant to the question of legal responsibility for one’s actions, just as they are irrelevant to the question of the legal authority to act without infringements on one’s freedoms.
I understand all that, and I hate to see insanity used as a legal trick.
But then there’s this;
And this;
And much more that shed’s doubt on his competency. Even the initial diagnosis by the court appointed doctor was that he was not competent. A later diagnosis did find him competent, but a doctor hired by the prosecution said he wasn’t, and wrote a letter to that effect.
The prosecutors even admit that politics were involved.
The guy wouldn’t even attend his own trial, because he thought it was some kind of government proceeding. Even his own attorney couldn’t convince him otherwise.
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge -
you seem to be arguing that this is an obvious case of mental incompetance.
it may well be.
but niether you nor I am qualified to determine the central fact:
was he competant at the time he committed the crime(s)?
the proper agency for determining that fact is a court.
“politics” may well be at play - but bringing a criminal to trial is the prosecutor’s job - at most, it could be argued that a “deal” should have been cut, as opposed to filing criminal charges.
this case is not such a big deal - the detention without charges by Ashcroft is a big deal - a grandstanding prosecutor is not.
I saw the last half of it, and the case was a clear instance of severe prosecutorial misconduct, and the district attorneys responsible should be viewed with deep contempt, as well as the judge who let it happen.
Prosecutors hold enormous power and responsibility, as do judges. A snowball has a much better chance of taking over hell than justice being done when there is such a prosecutorial or judicial abuse of power as happened here, and in fact happens every day. I personally think that judges and prosecutors should be held civilly and criminaly liable for such abuses of power in both civil and criminal cases. There is a societal value on getting it right that exceeds the political value of looking tough. As it is now stands, too many people in our judicial system think it is more important to do the right thing politically than to make the right decision, as non-profitable as that might be to them during their retirements.
The only redeeming part of the story was the the trial prosecutor saw the error of her ways and was truly repentent, understanding that she had participated in a farce that was a cruel miscarriage of justice resulting in the death of someone who should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Who am I to say he was insane? I accept the doctor’s evaluations, and I saw the videotapes of his statesment before sentencing. He was sadly and deeply insane. The callous cruelty of those who assert otherwise, including those suggesting so here (happyheathen and the usual crowd of fascist SDMB scumbags that will follow), only shows their despicable failure to measure up as human beings. Hey! Look! A liberal can poison the well too!
The court is indeed the proper forum for determining sanity, but when the court and its officers disregard their duty in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary, it deserves the condemnation of people everywhere who understand that the court system and our civilization depend on courts doing the right thing, even when it seems that it might not be popular at the moment.
I call for an end to judicial and prosecutorial immunity as a method to curb such abuses of judicial and prosecutorial abuse. In civil cases, there are many calls for “tort reform” to combat frivolous cases, which ignores the fact that you can always make a claim for malicious prosecution in civil cases later. There should be a recognized tort for abuse of judicial power and prosecutor’s power. When it is triggered is an interesting question. If a judge acts without any jurisdiction, and authority, and with malice, it is actionable. But I would like to see that expanded to such instances as when no reasonable person would have come to such a conclusion when acting neutrally. Sorry about the hijack.
Is the sole qualification for a successful insanity plea mental incompetence at the time of the crime?
What if the person drifts in and out of competence?
What if they “intentionally” became incompetent? (E.g., by extensive drug use.)
mangeorge, following up on your heart attack example, having just stood in line at the supermarket with two people reeking of alcohol, what if the heart attack that caused a car to go off the road was entirely avoidable? A drunk isn’t responsible for killing someone with their car just because he wasn’t legally drunk at the time? Even though the alcohol was the sole cause of the heart problem?
I’m not saying there are definite answers to these questions, but it doesn’t seem like “he was insane” excuses everything.
Gee - I have entered the elite ranks of “the usual crowd of fascist SDMB scumbags”? I am SO honored, I am Sparticus, especially since your opinion is formed on your viewing the “last half of the tape” (which tape, BTW?).
I am sure that you are much better qualified to judge prosecutorial misconduct than is the trail court.
NEWSFLASH!!! - you are not the ultimate judge of the defendant’s competance, let alone my status as a “despicable failure to measure up as human being(s)”.
I’ll leave you with this:
“At Albany Medical Center, where Tortorici was treated for a knife injury he sustained during the struggle with the students, he tested positive for cocaine. Released into police custody, he was taken to the Albany County jail and charged with multiple counts of kidnapping, aggravated assault, and attempted murder. His lawyer entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.”
yeah. get coked, and all of a sudden you’re “not guilty by reason of insanity”
Sparc - IIFC, you can be held to the standards expected of an Officer Of the Court - do you really think your post was the brightest thing you’ve done recently?
partly, it’s my understanding that if you are competent at the time of the criminal act, your insanity plea will be worthless. Inability to assist your lawyer may cause some delays, however.
happy, I’m “happy” with my post and stand/sit by it as necessary, as well as my opinion of SDMB fascist scum. I am the ultimate judge of my own opinion, so somebody misinformed you. The man was three buckets of nuts, and anyone who pretends that he wasn’t has a seriously warped view of reality.
Am I to interpret your happy, I’m “happy” with my post and stand/sit by it as necessary… comment to be addressed to myself?
So, am I, in your words, “SDMB facist scum” (nee “fascist SDMB scumbags”)?
Do I (still?) rate as a “despicable failure to measure up as a human being”?
Want to discuss overtly damaging allegations at this point?
I was completely bewildered by that “Frontline”. I have seen several of their shows about scary legal misconduct but this one struck me as just the way things are supposed to work. (In court, not prison.)
The guy had mental problems but I don’t believe those mental problems are the “didn’t know he was doing something illegal” type. He clearly knew the police would come, etc. He (to me) obviously knew right from wrong. That means he doesn’t qualify for “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense.
The prisons are full of people who actually enjoy committing crimes are thereby are “insane” by any reasonable standards. But they are not considered incapable of telling right from wrong.
Insanity in general does not mean insanity in a narrow legal sense.
This “Frontline” was a waste of film compared to their others.
Actually, ftg, he thought (hoped) the president was going to make the government finally take microchips out of his penis and brain. He had already tried the medical and legal authorities, and they didn’t help him. They let him run around with his microchips still intact.
This show was the epitome of good reporting. Frontline usually is.
Peace,
mangeorge
heathen: don’t worry about I am Spartacus. He’s obviously suffering from paranoid delusions that make him lose touch with reality and forget that he’s not in the Pit, where accusing other posters of being “fascist SDMB scumbags” would be acceptable.
You should simply pity the man. He’s obviously not responsible for his actions.
Brian Ekers plea’s for understanding;
True, but only if he’s being told to say these things by microchips implanted in his various body parts. And having vivid hallucinations of “strorm troopers” goose-stepping all over this thread.
Aww, poor babies. Sniff, sniff. The question is whether insanity should constitute a defense. The Frontline piece presented a case of such clear insanity that it was what we call in argument a “given”: reasonable people would not differ. Those who want to anyway are not really going to be taken seriously.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor and the judge fobbed off the duty for factual determination on the jury without allowing them to present the case. The trial prosecutor admitted and regretted that this was exactly what happened. Then we are blithely told here in this thread that the way these things are determined is the way they were determined and that nobody else here is “qualified” to have an opinion or make a determination for themselves, the all powerful government has spoken. To which I say: “horsehockey”. That’s the very definition of fascism, so that is merely descriptive. Perhaps scumbags is not appropriate for this forum as an unnecessary adjective, but I’ve seen worse cast my way in this forum in the past. And the accusation of insanity against me in the thread is a worse example. But we are all grown-ups here and understand that in the give and take of ideas, verbiage will get a bit interesting.
The actual trial prosecutor strongly believes that it was a charade and mockery of justice, which it was. The elected politician DA postures otherwise. One is far more acquainted with the facts than the other.
Simply because there is an outcome in the judicial system does not mean that the outcome is correct. Mistakes and miscarriages of justice occur every day in all walks of life. There are those that want to see those abuses curtailed in the future, and those that wish to see the situation remain the same. I think that once a person does establish their points in a debate, a condemnation of the opposing point of view may be appropriate, and sometimes a condemnation of the proponent is also appropriate: such as when someone says that I, and the public, are not entitled to have an opinion on a subject that occured in the public courts, they can expect a rather nasty reply, describing their method of arguing and personality as “fascist scumbag”, because that is what it is.
Now I know that many of the more genteel SDMBers, particularly among my fellow liberals, think such methods are shocking in a debate and best left for the other side. I don’t. I think that the other side doesn’t get enough of what they dish out. And I am not one of those “don’t get mad, get even” sorts. I plan on giving a good deal better than I get. So when somebody starts copping an attitude that no one is qualified to have an opinion except the publically elected officials who made it, they are going to be exposed to an alternate point of view that describes what I think of their method of telling others to “shut up”.
Why don’t I take it to the Pit? The last thread I started in the Pit explains why. I won’t repeat it here. The ultimate issue is whether an insanity defense is going to be allowed at all. It is very rarely successful as a defense, and rarely used. I do believe that someone with severe paranoid schizophrenia, which the subject had in the Frontline story, should be civilly committed, that an insanity defense should be allowed.
Well, no microchips there. And no delusions.
While I’m not fong of name-calling, I’ve got to go with the spirit of what I am Sparticus say’s in his reply.
Peace,
mangeorge
Fond. I’m not fond o name-calling. Sheesh!
Why was there a trial?
Because there was a question of criminal guilt.
When there is such a question, the matter is taken up by a court.
The court is qualified to make that determination - “Frontline” is not, I am not, you are not.
Everyone is entitlied to an opinion, but it is the court’s job to find fact.
and, in all my years, I do not think I have ever been called a fascist before - I usually get called a commie, a liberal (with or without the “bleeding heart” qualifier), Atheist (at least they get that part right), and (insert name of despised group here)-lover.
So, while we are discussing opinions:
what should have been done with him?
He should have placed in a secure hospital and received treatment, just as Cheryl Coleman said.
Why is that idea so hard to accept?
Well… not that I know what this thread is all about and not that I could give a damned… but one thing is sure, I am glad that you hold people to some standard… one should always hold people to some standard…
whatever.
Sorry Sparc - typo. my bad/mea culpa.