No. It's not the same as charging the capital. Stop. It's a ploy by the defense. I contend "insane" killers should get no more consideration in "due process" than "sane" killers.

@barjoe she was found to be unfit to stand trial by the state hired psycologist in Idaho, hardly a bastion of liberal ideals. It goes back to English common law that no person who because of mental disease or defect that renders them unable to aid in their own defense shall be put on trial. It is a very high bar to cross over and most prosecution psycologist know thaqt they won't get a second case if they find some incompetent that is not.

Second, she has only been charged, our system rquires that a person be found guilty before anyone is allowed to kill them otherwise you are just advocating murdering someone that has offended your sense with no proof.

@glennlab Huh? Oh. Because I said she needs to fry? She deserves her day in court and will stand trial. I promise you that. She wasn't going to get the death penalty either way. Lori and her husband, Chad, are religious cultists. Fuck em.

@barjoe "She needs to fry!" does not sound like due process.

@barjoe Our system of justice rquires two parts, first a trial to determine guilt or innocence, the a second trial to determine punishment.

Idaho does not have a not guilty by reason of insanity defense. IF she is found guilty, she will then face a sentencing trial with the same jury or the judge where all mitigating evidence will be presented. The people sentencing her will have seen all the evidence from the trial as well as the additional mitigationg evidence. None of which have you seen, since the trial is on hold.

@glennlab Thanks for the info.

@itsmedammit I guess it doesn't, I have a way with words. I've been watching the proceeding on Court TV. I have an opinion about the case. My opinion doesn't provide due process. I think she killed her kids and buried them on the property. A court will eventually decide if she and Chad are guilty. They won't get the death penalty.

Exactly. Heinous crime.

Any woman who would kill her children and bury them on her property is criminally insane. That goes without saying. If a person commits a criminal act, that person should be convicted. The insanity defense should be abolished for capital crimes. I conclude almost all murderers are sociopaths. So what? Hopefully she will be reevaluated and made to stand trial.

@barjoe In other words your issues are with the criminal justice system as a whole, this particular case just being one example.

That's fine.

@ToakReon John Hinckley shot President Reagan almost killing him, crippled Press Secretary James Brady for life and was found not guilty by reasons of insanity. He claimed he was trying to show his devotion to actress Jody Foster. His family were billionaires. The insanity defense is a rich person's defense. I contend the fact that he's insane is both obvious and irrelevant. Same with Mother of the Year Lori Vallow Daybell and her husband Chad.

@barjoe Sociopaths are not usually insane.

@itsmedammit in the legal definition maybe. What if they are insane? How is that relevant? Why should insanity be a defense?

@barjoe If they are insane, that is a different question. It is only relevant because of your use of the term. Legal scholars have decided there should be n insanity defense. These were people who know a lot more about the law than I do. I am certain the decision was not arrived at casually. I am sure it was given much thought and probably there are factors that are not immediately apparent to most of us. At the base of it though, I agree that there should be an insanity defense. I think it is possible that a person can be so disconnected from reality as to not be aware of what is actually going on. I don't know if a "normal" person can really imagine what it would be like to be insane.

@itsmedammit I guess you care what it would be like to be insane. I don't. It's a rich man's defense. John Hinckley shot the damn president but a delusional billionaire is criminally insane, everybody else is just a criminal.

It was a Court that ruled her unfit. Get it?

@Alienbeing Yes, generally for an insanity defense the judge and prosecutor have to be on board with it. What am I not getting?

@Druvius Show me where the insanity defense appears in the constitution. SCOTUS has found that abolition of insanity defense by states is constitutional.

@Druvius I apologize, I misread your 5/28 post, I didn't read in the "?" at the end of your first sentence.

@Alienbeing Understood, I suspected as much.

As to how forces in society affected her. So what? Who cares? We all grew up in the same society. Of course she's insane. Anyone who would do that is. Should we let all murderers go?

@barjoe Most murderers are not insane.

@itsmedammit I contend that most are, it's just a question of degree. You are correct as far as the legal definition. What should they call it? Character flaw?

@barjoe Just going for accuracy here. Sociopaths generally are fully aware of what they are doing. Actually if you want to get real picky, sociopaths aren't usually killers. Psychopaths are more likely than sociopaths, but generally most murderers are neither, unless you are talking serial killers. A truly insane person has a break with reality. Please note that I am not commenting on this specific case as far as opinion. I don't know that much about the case other than what has been reported in the press.

@glennlab How does that work?

@barjoe if I understand the system, she has to be cognizant enough to understand the charges against her. So once she is institutionalized she can not be released until such time as she is deemed able to understand the charges and stand trial for the crime. My understanding anyway.
But I am with you on the death penalty. If you are killing people for no reason, you are insane because normal people don’t commit wanton murder. Psychology is an extremely inexact science to say the least, so getting someone to say you’re crazy is not that complicated if you can afford it. That should in no way make you eligible to get out of the crime you committed. If anything, it should be presented as a reason for the person to never get out! Look at the guy that killed the 8 people in San Jose this week. He had been arrested several times, his partner had filed charges against him for battery, he was a time bomb waiting for a match. Had he not shot himself (I love when they do that, if only they didn’t have to take innocent people with them!) he would also be found criminally insane and spent who knows how many years in some expensive institution. It is a f***ked up system.

@Barnie2years I seriously doubt the San Jose shooter would have been found insane. Most mass shooters, while they most likely have some mental illness, are not insane.

@itsmedammit Found insane? Insanity should be irrelevant. It doesn't do the victims any good as the the degree of mental illness that savage animal "suffered" from.

@barjoe I don't understand your comment. To whom are you referring? I didn't suggest anyone be found insane.

@itsmedammit I tagged you. You seriously doubted the San Jose shooter would be "found insane". I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a psychologist. If you are either, please enlighten me.

@itsmedammit he had obvious mental issues, as outlined in his previous arrest records. He should never have been in possession of a weapon, and been under intense psychological treatment. But of course most of that doesn’t happen until after people are killed.

@barjoe I am neither. I am going by statistics. This is from a Frontline program: "Virtually all studies conclude that the insanity defense is raised in less than 1 percent of felony cases, and is successful in only a fraction of those 1. The vast majority of those that are successful are the result of a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defense agree to a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) plea." I can't find much about successful insanity defense and mass shootings, other than one case from back in 1964.

Years ago I worked for a forensic psychologist who evaluated hundreds of people for the court system and he frequently served as an expert witness. Probably his highest profile evaluation was of Dahmer. Guess what? Not insane, crazy as that guy was.

@Barnie2years But we were talking insanity and its use as a defense. LOTS of people are mentally ill. Very few are insane. How often have you seen a mass shooter successfully use the insanity defense?

@itsmedammit Did he evaluate Jeffrey Dahmer as insane? He was. It shouldn't matter. He was killed in prison. The guy who killed him was insane as well.

@barjoe Sorry, thought I was clear. He was determined to be not insane. You and I might say he was insane but there is a reason to have legal definitions for things. We can't have every individual just decide what the law is to be on any given day.

@itsmedammit You have an opinion and I have a different opinion. I don't decide what the law should be on any given day. I just disagree with the insanity defense. I have a right to say what I want.

@itsmedammit, @barjoe Insanity as a defense is possibly the worst of all defenses, because first you have to admit you did the crime, then you have to prove that you could not distinguish between right and wrong. 4 states do not allow any version of innocent by reason of insanity, several others only allow a guilty,(which takes the death penalty out of the deal) but insane which allows either an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence in a mental faciiity. These are not get out of jail free cards, they are not even more lienient sentences these facilities are the worst of the worst in most cases. In some cases the person can be released from the mental facility to go straight to death row.

The criminal Justice system is heavily stacked in favor of the prosecution with over 95% of all persons charged being convicted.

@glennlab Yeah, its's not as though it's a ticket to easy freedom. At best, maybe avoid death. I do think the idea that it is an easy out is a popular misconception.