That’s nice, but it has nothing to do with the question I asked you.
Yes it does. You asked
My answer is: none, if the Alzheimer’s patient is competent (in which case he or she gets to drive a car if they can pass a driver’s test, and should get ticketed or arrested on the same terms as any other driver if they break the rules) and the schizophrenic is also competent (same deal). Also, none if they are both incompetent (in which case neither of them get to drive). So it’s all about competency. Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia per se aren’t directly relevant.
There is a qualitative difference if the Alzheimer’s patient is incompetent but the schizophrenic isn’t, though.
You follow?
Yeah, but what do YOU know? You’re CRAZY! 
Or, another way of looking at it:
Which one of us was the paranoid schizophrenic again? 
Not sure if I do. The person in my example, who has delusions, may indeed be able to answer simple questions such as “Who am I?”, and “Where am I?”, but indeed may still have falsely believed that a government agent ordered him to crash his car. Is this person “incompetent”? If yes, then you’re just arguing semantics over what “incompetent” vs. “insane” means, which isn’t really what’s important, IMO. If no, then I again ask you exactly why there should be a qualitative difference between mental failure due to lack of awareness (Alzheimers) and awareness of what isn’t there (Schizoprenia)?
::sigh::
If the guy who believes the government wants him to crash is car knows who he is and is generally oriented to place and time and person, and can process basic information, he’s competent. And therefore should be arrested and charged with vehicular homicide or something. He doesn’t get off the hook just because he entertains some weird notions as a consequence (or a definition) of schizophrenia.
I don’t think I’m being opaque or that I’m trying to have it both ways or anything. (Is anyone aside from blowero finding me hard to understand here?)
What are you getting all bent out of shape for? You are apparently proposing getting rid of all insanity defenses. I asked you your opinion as to why you believe incompetency is a more valid defense than insanity, and you went off on some huge tangent about what specific questions one would ask to determine competency. Then when I tried to bring you back around to the question I was asking, you got angry. It’s a perfectly valid question; I don’t understand why you would present your views as you have, and then become angered when I want to discuss them with you. If you don’t like to debate things, I suggest you stay out of Great Debates. :rolleyes:
Paging someone who can speak blowero and AHunter3 and is willing to serve as translator, please.
Honest to Og, I don’t know what it is that you’re asking, if it isn’t addressed by my answers so far.
I believe the problem is that you thouht I was asking you to clarify your position, when I was not. I understood you perfectly until you went on that tangent about the questions.
So again, I understand your position; I am asking you what your reasoning is for holding that position.
But we’re obviously not getting anywhere, so why don’t we just forget it.
IANAL, but in my understanding, incompetency and insanity are two completely different things and incompetency is not a defense. Incompetency has to do with the abilty to stand trial, to know the purpose of the trial, to know the judge is not a grapefruit and to assist in one’s own defense. It is unrelated to the person’s condition at the time of the crime, and a person found to be incompetent may later regain competency and stand trial. Insanity is a defense, and relates to the knowing that an action is wrong at the time of the crime, not at the time of trial. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity has been tried and found not to be responsible for his or her actions, and can never again be tried for the same crime.
A person who shoots another person, and is then hit by a bus and falls into a coma is incompetent while in the coma. A person who shoots a person, believing the person is a demon who has come to possess him, would be using the insanity defense, even if he is competent at the time of trial and even if he realizes at the time of trial that he actually shot a person and was wrong to do so.
IANAL, but in my understanding, incompetency and insanity are two completely different things and incompetency is not a defense. Incompetency has to do with the abilty to stand trial, to know the purpose of the trial, to know the judge is not a grapefruit and to assist in one’s own defense. It is unrelated to the person’s condition at the time of the crime, and a person found to be incompetent may later regain competency and stand trial. Insanity is a defense, and relates to the knowing that an action is wrong at the time of the crime, not at the time of trial. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity has been tried and found not to be responsible for his or her actions, and can never again be tried for the same crime.
A person who shoots another person, and is then hit by a bus and falls into a coma is incompetent while in the coma. A person who shoots a person, believing the person is a demon who has come to possess him, would be using the insanity defense, even if he is competent at the time of trial and even if he realizes at the time of trial that he actually shot a person and was wrong to do so.
That may be true, but it’s not what AHunter3 is proposing. He is proposing that incompetency be a defense. In the example he gave, the person commits the crime while incompetent, and I was responding to his proposal. Whether competent to stand trial, is another matter - not what we were discussing. He’s talking about a hypothetical, and you’re talking about the actual state of affairs.
Sometimes nothing is better than forcing them to submit to something.
Consenting is one thing, being forced to do something against your will is a crime itself. Respectfully, you of all people should know this.
My mother-in-law had to endure this 25 years ago, and my wife wept each time they took her to the hospital for her consented “treatment”, not knowing at the time what the actual outcome would be. Whose to say that current treatments are safer in any regards?
I think I understand your point of view, and correct me if I’m wrong:
Usually people in law enforcement tend to see behaviors in black(criminal) and white(law-abiding), but people who suffer from mental illness or mental disabilities are the “gray area”. Some people in law enforcement are not sure how to handle each incident with someone who is MI/MD on a case by case basis, and might falsely assume that mandating drug treatments will make this “gray area” go away, so it will not become a law enforcement issue.
We all wish the solution was that easy, but it’s not.
Yeticus Rex ,
Thank you. No correcting you because you’re pretty accurate. Cops generally have to be all things to all people at all times – parent, savior, counselor, neighborhood mediator, traffic enforcer, hero, servant, etc, etc, etc. However, we’re really only expert at criminal law, and cannot hope to duplicate the knowledge/expertise of mental health professionals. (As an aside, the kind of people you need cops to be doesn’t overlap well with the kind of people you need mental health professionals to be – a whole other topic in itself. 
)
Actually, I wasn’t trying to make the problem go away (since I get paid for a full day regardless and could “pad” my stats with re-curring problems if I liked doing so), so much as I think people should be able to live healthy lives.
Rob
AZRob, does you police department have a criminal psychologist on staff? Usually, only large cities would staff them, but that might help the MI/MD population that you patrol, and hopefully get them out of the criminal system and into the mental health system. I think Arizona does not have a great mental health system to begin with, but sometimes just a little help can go a long ways.
No we don’t . Sounds like a good idea though.
AZRob , are you aware of how much psychiatric medications cost? Have you been keeping up with the debate about the cost of prescription drugs and indigent health care in this country? One in five people with bipolar disorder will die by suicide yet it is not generally considered a life or death health care issue like diabetes or heart disease. Some months I’m hard-pressed to pay my bills, you want to discuss meds?
As long as we have the option of being handled by the criminal justice system if that’s our preference. No forced mental health treatment.
Agreed…but somebody whose MI/MD in the criminal system will not fare very well and they should be given periodic opportunities (if they refuse at first) to transfer over to the mental health system, but there probably should be a line drawn when it comes to murder, rape and other violent crimes.