One of the easiest ways to “get out” of a capital crime is to be declared insane. Not Guilty by Reason of insanity allows someone to get away with murder. Someone who is not insane might be able to get away with murder by convincing people he or she is insane by acting weird when they are picked up. Should the laws regarding insanity pleas be changed? How about making a charge of Guilty, but Insane? That way, they can be committed to an institution and get the help they need. The public doesn’t have to worry about this person walking after getting a miracle cure. If he has a minimum amount of time to spend in the institution, and he’s cured before that time is up…he gets transfered to a detention facility. If you take away the carrot of walking after a year or so for killing someone, perhaps there will be fewer people use that plea.
Quote:‘One of the easiest ways to “get out” of a capital crime is to be declared insane’.
I don’t know where you’re getting your info. It’s not like the accused can simply yell ‘I’m crazy’ and get a free pass. An insanity defense is almost always a last resort for desperate defendants and it very rarely works. In most states insanity is a affimitive defense, meaning the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt would shift to the defense.
Even defendants who were obviously unbalanced have been found legally sane and sentenced to prison, not hospitals.
A man like David Hinkley who is “cured” should have served as much time as a sane man before being released. Perhaps he as, but that should be the rule.
“Guilty, but insane” misses the point of the insanity defence, which is that the defendent’s act doesn’t satisfy the ‘guilty act, guilty mind’ requirement of the crime. The legal definition of insantity is much narrower than the psychological one because it’s limited to those kinds of mental defect where someone can’t tell right from wrong, and can’t appreciate the consequence of his actions - so, no guilty mind. No guilty mind, not guilty. However, in proving the defendent is legally insane, it gives the justice system the handle on them to lock them up for treatment.
If the system “cures” you, you’re still not legally guilty - you were crazy when you committed the crime. If your fear is that these people aren’t being punished enough, that they’re somehow getting away with murder, I think you’re overstating abuses of the justice system.
I agree with Spooje: the insanity defence is used rarely, and I heard that less than 10% of the attempts to use it are successful. It’s a last ditch defence. Not only was Jeffrey Dahmer found to be sane, but one of the big issues in death penalty states is their continued executions of people who are obviously mentally retarded or just completely batshit in the head. If there’s an abuse of the justice system going on, it’s that people who should be not guilty by reason of insanity are being found guilty because people just don’t believe them.
For first-degree murder this makes sense, but for second-degree murder it makes a lot less sense.
First-degree murder requires the guilty party to have planned to kill someone. It requires the jury to get inside the mind of the killer and determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killer intended to kill his/her victim. Second-degree murder requires no such determination – the killer’s actions, alone, are sufficient to convict him/her.
Therefore, in my not-so-humble opinion, the Insanity Defense should have no bearing on a second-degree murder charge, only on a first-degree murder charge.
Actually it isn’t that easy. When someone uses the insanity defense the burden of proof is on them.
**
No, they seem to work rather well. While it is possible that someone who is sane can get off on an insanity plea it generally doesn’t happen. Heck, it is also possible to convict someone who is innocent.
Nay. You haven’t demonstrated that it is a serious problem with the justice system. I’ve heard people attempt to use the insanity defense but I’ve not seen it work very often.
Yeah, at the turn of the century. Now they must go through extensive testing to be determined criminally insane. Which by the way, “insane” is a purely legal term. It is not a medical term any longer.
They are already pretty strict. Every state has a statute that is very specific. And there is already a “Guilty but insane” charge.
There already is a “minimum” amount of time, and it’s a lot more than a year.
All of this is from the same website. It took me less than 5 minutes to find. Maybe you should have done some research before starting a debate, because there really isn’t much to debate here.
The guilty mind requirement doesn’t refer to premeditation - it refers to the perpetrator being cognizant of their act, and it’s wrongness. A person who commits second-degree murder is not unaware that it’s wrong, they just didn’t plan it out. Likewise, manslaughter.
The insanity defense relies on demonstrating that the defendant didn’t know his act was wrong, or didn’t understand his act at all. No matter how much of a crime of passion it might be, unless the defendant can show that he didn’t think murder was wrong generally, or that his act wasn’t murder, he’s guilty. A defense of temporary insanity just says that, at the time the crime was committed, the above conditions were true.
Many years ago I was complaining about the criminal justice system and the insanity defense when my highschool history teacher told me, “If you ever get committed to an institution for the criminally insane, don’t count on getting out, EVER.” From what I have read in law books and in psychology texts this is in fact true. Case in point, a man was arrested for shoplifting and was evaluated by a state psychiatrist as to whether or not he was fit to stand trial. The state official was put on the stand to testify as to whether or not the defendent could stand trial, it was a yes/no question and the answer was yes. The state psychiatrist, though, couldn’t keep his mouth shut and added that the man was schizophrenic but this didn’t make him unfit to stand trial (for those who don’t know, schizophrenia is an incurable and degenerative mental illness that affects judgement). The defense attorney sprang upon the poor doctor and made him admit that the man was insane. Since it was the state’s own witness that made the insanity determination the state had to accept it (it’s like having the prosecuting attorney admit that the defendent is innocent, all other evidence and testimony becomes instantly irrelevant). The man was found to be criminally insane and was committed to an institution. Fast forward 7 years, the man (who is still committed) appeals to the state supreme court on the grounds that even if he had been found to be sane and guilty they couldn’t have detained him for more than one year on a shoplifting charge. The state supreme court denies his appeal on the grounds that he has been committed to an institiution, not as punishment for his crime, but to prevent him from harming himself and others. Furthermore, they affirm the practice of only the doctors at the institution in question being able to decide if an inmate is no longer a danger and to release him, the courts can do nothing to override them. As far as I know the man is still confined to the institution.
The doctors in these institutions who have the power to release inmates are in a unique position. If they release an inmate and he kills somebody and the victim’s family sues the doctor, they can win a huge settlement. OTOH, if a doctor keeps a sane man in an institution for the criminally insane there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING anyone can do about it. You could have every other doctor in the world testify that the inmate is sane and the state doctor still wouldn’t have to release him, he can’t be sued for not releasing someone. Thus, there is no motivation to release anyone from such institutions. Hospitals for non-criminally insane persons have different rules but it is still very hard to get released (before your insurance runs out) and even harder to get the hospital to admit that you were never insane in the first place no matter what the situation. In a very famous study, several psychology grad students had themselves committed to various institutions by complaining about hearing voices (a common sign of schizophrenia). They stopped displaying any sign of mental illness after the initial admittance. The hospitals refused to let these men out, even after they admitted they were grad students and it was just a study. After their eventual release (it took 6 months in some cases) the hospitals listed these patients as schizophrenics in remission NOT as heatlthy sane people. This may seem trivial but as far as I know these men can still be denied certain jobs and the right to own firearms based on such a diagnosis.
For as other posters have set forth above, the OP seriously misrepresents the application and availability of the insanity defense.
For many major crimes, a particular mental state is an element of the crime. For example, “murder” might be very broadly defined as the act of intentionally killing another person. If you didn’t kill that person intentionally, then you wouldn’t be guilty of the crime of “murder.” The whole point of an insanity defense is that the individual lacked the requisite mental state to meet that element of the crime. Therefore, he or she could not be found “guilty, but insane,” because his or her insanity means that one of the elements of the crime cannot be met, and the person is therefore, by definition, not guilty of that particular crime. It’s like defining a particular crime as involving the use of a gun, and then saying you want to find someone “guilty, except they didn’t use a gun.” You can’t do that, if the use of a gun is one of the elements of the crime itself. Likewise, if a particular mental state is an element of a particular crime, then an individual lacking that mental state is simply not guilty of that crime.
It is not easy to prove an insanity defense in any event. In my jurisdiction, a determination must first be made as to the defendant’s fitness to stand trial and participate in his or her own defense. If you are not able to do so, you can be committed to a psychiatric facility for up to three months while the charges continue to hang over your head. If you’re not fit after that, the charges may be dropped, but you will be civilly committed (i.e., through civil commitment proceedings) to a mental institution for an unspecified period of time – but almost certainly years, not weeks or months.
If you are fit to stand trial, then your attorney has the burden of proving that, although you are fit now, at the time of the crime, you were insane. That’s your burden, since insanity is an affirmative defense. If you are found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (the legal term for insanity, at least in my jurisdiction), you don’t just walk away – the judge holds a hearing to determine whether your mental disease or defect requires you to be institutionalized. The chances of a person successfully arguing (1) I was insane when I committed the crime, but (2) I’m not insane now, and (3) I don’t need to be institutionalized, are slim. It amounts to a defense of temporary insanity, and it is very, very difficult to prove. The context in which I have most often read about it is when a mentally ill person goes off his or her medication, assaults or kills someone, but then contends that he or she, while manifestly mentally ill at the time of the crime, is okay now, because he or she is back on the medication. From what I’ve read, this doesn’t fly too well; a demonstrated refusal to self-medicate, or demonstrated irresponsibility about self-medicating, such that you render yourself a danger to the community, may itself be justification for placing you back in a mental institution for an extended stay.
Moreover, pleading insanity to avoid prison may not be the wisest choice if your other alternative is the forensic unit in a psychiatric facility – as, if you are charged with a serious crime, it most likely is. I’ve been to the forensic unit of the State hospital and to the State prison and, believe me, you’d way rather be in prison.
This is not generally (or, in my experience, ever) correct. If the doctor works for the State and the act of releasing the patient was within the course and scope of employment (which it seems obvious it would be), the doctor is probably shielded from personal liability by indemnification by the State. The victims may sue the State, not the doctor, but only if the State has waived its right to soveriegn immunity in such cases. I believe most states have done so, but any “huge settlement” would be paid for by the State, not the doctor.
Again, I don’t believe this is correct. A mentally-ill person, just like the rest of us, has a liberty interest that the State cannot unreasonably infringe. Therefore, if a person is no longer clinically mentally ill, or no longer presents a danger to himself or society, the State cannot keep him locked up.
Again, not correct. In my jurisdiction, if the patient maintains he or she is fit for release and the hospital disagrees, the Court, upon petition by either party, must appoint an independent doctor (or panel of doctors) to evaluate the patient and assess his or her fitness for release. Moveover, if the patient wants to present testimony from a doctor but cannot afford to pay to be evaluated, the State must pay for that evaluation, just as the State must provide an attorney at no cost to indigent defendants in felony cases.
If a patient is held in a mental institution when he or she is manifestly sane, he or she may sue the State (again, not the doctors individually) for damages resulting both from the illegal confinement and from the violation of his or her Constitutional rights.
Jodi, your info is in direct opposition to what my psych and law teachers in Nevada, New York, and Massachusetts told me about the rules for getting released from an institution for the criminally insane and the rules as to who can sue over what issue. Any licensed physician can be sued for malpractice every time he makes any kind of medical decision affecting anyone in his care. If a doctor is licensed then he is automatically eligible for malpractice suits (although the state may pay for insuring the doctors at state hospitals, they can still be sued). Only if the people who make such decisions at state mental institutions are not licensed physicians would they be free from malpractice lawsuits. In the case of a doctor refusing to release a patient that he believes to be a danger to himself or others the patient would not be able to sue because he is considered legally insane. Once a person is ruled legally insane and locked in an institution his civil rights are for all practical purposes revoked. He can’t sue anybody. You may be correct that a court could order an evaluation of an institutionalized prisoner but that review board would still be facing the same dilemma of the original doctor. That is, do we release this nut and face the potential consequences or just leave him in the nut-house? My original assertion remains, you can’t use lawsuits or doctor’s testimony to force anyone to sign off on the release of a particular inmate, just like you can’t sue the parole board for refusing to grant a convict parole before his sentence is up. In practice, though, mental institutions are overcrowded and under the same pressure to release inmates that regular prisons are under. I’m not sure if the capacity of our asylums has increased at the same rate as our prison capacity, it may be getting easier to get out of institutions
The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I won’t say that the law in my jurisdiction is the same as the law in yours. But certain Constitutional principles, like a liberty interest in personal freedom, transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Most jurisdictions have safeguards in place to preserve a mental patient’s liberty interest once the mental patient is fit to rejoin society. Those that do not ought to, because they are vulnerable to suits over these precise issues.
[qupte]Any licensed physician can be sued for malpractice every time he makes any kind of medical decision affecting anyone in his care.
[/quote]
As I said, this is not necessarily correct. A doctor who is a State employee may be immune or indemnified from suit in his individual capacity because he is acting on behalf of the state, and his actions are attributable to the State. Therefore, the party sue-able for damages is the State, not the doctor individually. This is the law in my jurisdiction; since I don’t know where you are, I don’t know if it’s the law in yours, but I do know that it is the law in the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions.
The doctor may not be sued individually if he is subject to immunity as a State employee. The doctor may be sued individually if he is only entitled to indemnification (not immunity), in which case the State pays the damages.
This is simply not correct. A doctor serving at a State institution may not be sued in an individual capacity if the state in which he or she practices extends immunity to its employees for actions undertaken in the course and scope of their (state) job. Period.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Where did you get the idea that an individual committed to an institution lost his or her civil rights? That is absolutely, 100% incorrect. He or she loses some civil rights (like the right to move about freely), but not all of them. In any event, the whole context of this discussion was a person who is alleging that he or she is no longer insane and is therefore entitled to be released. Of course, in reality, this argument may turn on whether the person is manifestly still mentally ill, in which case their claim may be summarily dismissed. But if a person can make a credible argument that he or she is no longer a danger to society or his- or herself, he or she is entitled by law to make that argument. A doctor who without justification forestalls the individual’s right to make that argument violates the patient’s liberty interest, due process interests, freedom of association, and a host of other constitutional guarantees. In such a case, the patient may certainly sue the doctor (or the State, if it immunizes/indemnifies its employees from suit), and may ask for both damages and immediate release.
Your statement assumes that the panel believes it is dealing with a “nut” – i.e., a person still significantly mentally ill and not deserving of release. That is, in fact, the very determination the panel is expected to make. If it determines the patient is still a “nut,” then, yes, he or she remains in the “nuthouse.” If not, he or she goes free. An independent panel has no reason to be biased or unfair when make a determination of competency.
First, that was not your original assertion. Second, you can certainly use a lawsuit and/or a doctor’s testimony to force the State to release a person who is no longer a danger to himself or society. This is not the same as “forcing” a particular doctor who disagrees with the release to “sign off” on it; it is rather a matter of going over that doctor’s head and obtaining the release despite his or her objections. Third, the reason you cannot sue a parole board is because it is immune from suit, not because it cannot be “forced” to do something it doesn’t want to do. Fourth, there is an obvious difference between asking for early release when you are sentenced to serve a term of years and are not entitled to early release, and asking to be released when you are no longer mentally ill, when you are committed under the proviso that you will, in fact, be released at that point. In the former case, you are not entitled to be released; in the latter case, you are.
This doesn’t have anything to do with your original points, which were:
“If a state releases an inmate and he kills somebody and the victim’s family sues the doctor, they can win a huge settlement.” This may be true, but is not necessarily true, depending on whether an institution indemnifies its doctors and whether a state immunizes its employees (or some of them) from suit.
“If a doctor keeps a sane man in an institution for the criminally insane there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING anyone can do about it.” This is simply wrong.
“You could have every other doctor in the world testify that the inmate is sane and the state doctor still wouldn’t have to release him.” This is simply wrong.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but you have greatly misrepresented the law regarding the rights of the mentally ill, institutionalized or no. Whether you did so on purpose or not, I felt it only fair to attempt to correct some pretty large errors in your statements.
SarumanRex, it does not appear that you have a very good grasp of the legal system in the United States, and that you are getting your information second hand from people who themselves may be ill-informed (what do psychology teachers know about the details of the law?). Since you are asserting facts that sound pretty wacky to Jodi and me, who are both admitted attorneys, could you please give us some references?
In addition to Jodi’s cogent analysis, let me point out a flaw in your original post regarding determination of insanity
A doctor’s assertion that someone is “insane” has no legal impact. Plenty of medically insane people are legally sane. It is solely the jury’s duty to determine whether the facts have been proved to show legal insanity. Legal insanity is usually determined according to the M’Naughten rule, as Jodi has cited it, with the possible addition of an “irresistable impulse” exemption from culpability. See Black’s for further detail. Further, this testimony should most likely have been excluded because generally the defense must give advance notice of intent to use an insanity defense. In the absence of such notice, the testimony is irrelevant. Moreover, any witness’s testimony can be weighed and even wholly disregarded by the jury, even if it is testimony damaging to the party which called the witness.
Finally, could you give us a case name and state, and perhaps a date when this occurred? Frankly, the hearsay story of “a man” is just not enough for me to go on.
You asked for it. Although I have never been in a mental institute or judged to be insane (except by my fellow dopers), my info on this matter is sound. I have taken both law courses and psychology courses and the case I am about to cite was discussed in both (in fact, I’m suprised you haven’t already heard of it). Before I get to the legal case that my “ill-informed” opinion is based on, though, let me relate to you the “hearsay” testimony of “a man” I have known for close to 20 years who happens to currently work as a security guard in the mental ward of a public general hospital. According to him, patients who are brought in to the psych ward often complain about their rights being violated and that they are going to sue if they aren’t released immediatly. This is common behavior for many types of mental illness. That is, a lot of “crazy” people bitch and moan about how they don’t belong in a mental ward. The more they bitch about their rights, though, the sooner they end up sedated and strapped to a bed in the isolation ward. No one gives a rat’s ass about the rights of the mentally ill, unlike convicts THEY ARE NOT GIVEN ACCESS TO LAW BOOKS, LAWYERS, OR EVEN A TELEPHONE, visitation rights are often denied, they are often allowed no contact with the outside world. The doctors “treat the patients like shit”, those were my friend’s exact words. Not only is a patient unable to “force” the doctor’s to re-evaluate his case, they can’t even force a doctor to make eye contact. That is, you can’t even get a doctor to LOOK at you, let alone discuss your diagnosis or agree to your release.
No one ever questions the doctors decisions as to releasing patients or keeping them hospitalized, this is even more obvious when they release crazy people. When a street person is brought in by the police after a disturbance or trespassing charge, the doctors hold that person overnight and then relaese them with a few days worth of meds (under the assumption the patient will take them). It doesn’t make any difference that this street person has nowhere to go, is babbling incoherently, threatening staff and fellow patients, a clear danger to himself and others, or completely batshit, they are always released by the doctors. Why? Because they have no insurance, or even ID (with which to apply for public benefits). No one is paying to keep them in the hospital, so they are released. The instant a patient’s insurance benefits run out they are released regardless of their mental state. I have heard that this is how mental hospitals work in America, they make money by keeping the well insured hospitalized and releasing everyone else. If you don’t believe me then relate to me your stories from people who actually work in mental hospitals and know what they’re talking about.
My friend works in a hospital, though, not in a state institution for the criminally insane. From what my psych professors have told me, the conditions in such institutions are often atrocious. The inmates are treated worse than animals. Some are kept naked because of their tendancy to “mess” themslves, some are kept so heavily medicated that straight jackets are no longer necessary. That is, it is common practice to make the inmates endure a 24 hour chemical straight jacket for weeks at a time. In such a condition, an inmate couldn’t even spell lawsuit let alone file one. Even if an inmate had the wherewithal to sue for release, though, they don’t allow inmates access to pens and pencils, how would an inmate file a suit, with a crayon? As far as obtaining outside legal council to represent them in court, THEY HAVE NO MONEY. Once a person is declared insane and sent to an institution their family has them declared incompetant to manage their own estate. They have no access to their own money, what private attorney would take the case? You seem to assume that any sane man’s family would fight for their release from an institiution. From what my friend and my professors have told me, though, it is just the opposite. The families of the institutionalized are only too willing to take the doctor’s word for it when they say the inmate is a danger to himself and others. Once you get locked in a mental institution everyone assumes you’re crazy. The fact that you seem coherent and protest your diagnosis is actually used as evidence of your insanity. That is, if you persist in ignoring all the doctors who say that you are a danger to yourself and others, if you keep saying that they are all wrong and are conspiring to keep you institutionalized, then you are further diagnosed as paranoid and delusional.
You may be correct that a state doctor can not be sued directly for releasing a dangerous person who goes on to commit some horrible crime. However, if you have ever heard of Willie Horton or John Hinkley then you know just how much shit can hit the fan whenever somebody gets released by the state. In case you don’t remember, Horton was a murderer who was given a weekend pass from a Massachusetts state prison and then raped and murdered someone (this was an issue in the Bush/Dukakis election), Hinkley shot Reagan and was just recently granted the right to leave the mental institute for unsupervised visits to his parents. In both cases there was public outcry over the release. So even if a doctor can’t be sued directly, there are still serious consequences to releasing someone from any state institution (prison or hospital). There is no easy way to tell what a person will do after release, so don’t tell me that this wouldn’t apply to someone who was “sane” in YOUR opinion, your opinion is irrelevant, only the doctor’s opinion matters. The state doctors are under no pressure to release anyone since the state is paying the bill to keep them institutionalized, they are, however, under tremendous pressure to keep potentially dangerous people locked up.
Now, without further delay, here is the case that was discussed in both my legal classes and my psych classes at considerable length (from the revised 6th edition of Abnormal Psychology by Davison and Neale, pages 630-632 as abbreviated by me): Case of Jones vs United States, 463 U.S., 103 S. Ct., L. Ed. 2d, 51 U.S.L.W. 5041 (1983). Michael Jones was arrested unarmed on Sept. 19, 1975, for attempting to steal a jacket from a department store in Washington D.C. He was charged the following day with attempted petty larceny, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum prison sentence of one year. The court ordered that he be committed to …a public mental hospital…for a determination of his competency to stand trial. …almost six months later a hospital psychologist reported to the court that Jones was competent to stand trial, although he suffered from “schizophrenia, paranoid type.” The psychologist also reported that Mr. Jones’ crime was caused by his condition, paranoid schizophrenia. This is noteworthy because the psychologist was not asked to offer an opinion on the nature of the crime itself, only on whether Jones was competent to stand trial. (Side note, my law professors told me that Jones’ lawyer got the psychiatrist to testify that Jones was legally insane even though the prosecuter never asked such a question or intended for such testimony.) Jones then decided to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Ten days later…the court found him not guilty by reason of insanity and formally committed him …for treatment of his mental disorder. …customary fifty day hearing was held to determine whether Jones should remain in the hospital…psychologist from the hospital testified that, indeed, Jones still suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and was therefore still a danger to himself and others. …seventeen months…defendent demanded release…court denied the request. …Court of Appeals agreed with the original court. …more than seven years after…Supreme Court…five to four decision…affirmed the earlier decision. …The burden of proof was on Jones…to prove that he was no longer mentally ill, or dangerous to society.
(the part in parenthesis was added by me)
If you still think that you could argue yourself or someone else out of an institution for the criminally insane when the state doctors maintain their position that the inmate is a danger to himself and others, then I suggest you try it sometime and find out for yourself. I’m sure the state hospitals are full of people who would appreciate some pro bono work on their behalf.
Your point is completely irrelevant. So what if it is the state that has to pay the huge settlement rather than the doctor. All doctors have some kind of insurance to pay for malpractice claims, what difference does it make if an insurance company pays the settlement or the state pays. I think that if the state pays then the doctor is in even more trouble than if it was his own insurance company. That is, if your employer were forced to pay a large settlement on account of your mistake, what do you think would happen to you? Would you be fired, or perhaps have your license revoked? As far as I know, a state can’t give itself immunity from lawsuits, is this not the case? A mistake by any licensed state employee is the state’s responsibility, is it not?
You seem to think that getting a state authority (a court or a medical review board) to overrule the state’s own doctors (who have spent much much more time observing the patient) and declare an inmate (WHO WAS FOUND TO BE CRIMINALLY INSANE IN A COURT OF LAW) to be ready for release is an easy and commonplace procedure. That to keep a sane man institutionized would result in a successful lawsuit on the part of the inmate. WHO SAYS HE’S SANE? If the state never admits that the man is sane why would they ever pay a settlement, who exactly is it that is going to overrule the state doctors. You asked me to cite my case, now I would like you to cite cases where the state’s doctors were overruled. That is, a person who was legally committed to an institution for the criminally insane and was judged by the state’s own doctors to still be a danger to himself and others was released over the vigorous protests of the doctors that had observed the patient over a period of years. I am under the impression that it is easier to get the Supreme Court to overrule a decision it made just last month than it is to get a state body to overrule its own doctors. State bodies exist to support the state’s institutions not to undermine them. If you can cite cases from several different states I would be amazed and comforted to know that I was wrong. That it is possible to get out of an asylum, even if the doctors there still refuse to sign off on your release. My sources were all in complete agreement on one point, that the more you fight to get out, the more the doctors will fight to keep you in, and nobody else in the world actually believes in you enough to fight for your release. Period.
I can’t speak specifically about the criminally insane, but I can speak about parole revocations,since I deal with them all the time ( I prosecute them, although I’m not an attorney}.With a parole violation, a state employee ( the parole officer) accuses the parolee of being in violation. Another state employee (me) prosecutes the case. A judge then decides if there was a violation, if it was important, and then , if it was an important violation, if the person should be sent to prison. Judges regularly find either :
a} there was no violation
b) it wasn't an important violation or
c) it was an important violation, but the person should be released from jail
Not only are these judges state employees, they are employees of the very same agency that employs me and the parole officer,but still they regularly overrule other state employees.
And about the “who says he’s sane”, someone correct me if i’m wrong, but I believe the burden is on the state has to prove that he’s still insane.
Perhaps that doctor wouldn’t have to, but if there’s a hearing, the judge surely would, if that doctor was the only one who believed hthe inmate is insane.
Doreen, the case SarumanRex cites does mention that the burden of proof shifts to the inmate once he’s been committed. This is deemed fair because either he’s been proven to be insane and a danger to himself or others in a civil commitment action by clear and convincing evidence, or he himself has proven that he is legally insane by a preponderance of the evidence. The law does require periodic hearings if the inmate requests them. His burden of proof at such a hearing is preponderance of the evidence.
