Court: Jared Loughner can refuse anti-psychotic medication

Gotta love the catch 22. He can't be forced to take his meds because he's not been found guilty. But as long as he doesn't take his meds, he's not competent to stand trial in order for him to be found guilty.

Justice. What a concept.

At the same time, there is no statute of limitations on homicide and Loughner can’t be released until he is competent, but if he is competent he must be tried.

The unintended consequence is that DOJ will be denied a show trial. They won’t get weeks on end to damn the firearms industry for manufacturing guns while the real problem is crazy lefties on the street.

The gun didn’t pull the trigger, the crazy pulled the trigger.

I don’t usually defend crazy people, but this guy is whacked. He should be locked up. Forever. I really don’t need a trial to know that.

Anyway, he will never see the light of day as a free person again. I don’t really care if he is in a psychotic state or not.

I would feel better if he got the needle, but you really cannot serve justice on a crazy person.

good point.
but i’m confused why his innocence is an issue:

“Since Loughner has not been convicted of a crime, he is presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to greater constitutional protections than a convicted inmate,” court documents said.

///
crazy and mentally incompetent people, ARE forced to take medication all the time.

suicide is illegal. parents can be forced to get medical treatment for their children.
...even if Loughner wasn’t accused of anything,
it seems to me, that an insane person, who DOCTORS say needs anti-psychotic medication, isn’t any more competent to refuse, than a child.
...i’d wager there are crazy people all over the country in institutions, who are give medication, who would say they don’t want it.

it seems an exception is made for Loughner, to be properly cared for medically, as an insane ward of the courts, precisely because of the charges.

Only medication this worm needs is the type of medication administered to Ron Brown...

We’ve had a lot of debate in the past week or so over a certain trial that resulted in an acquital.

In this Loughner case, A CROWD OF PEOPLE SAW THIS MAN COMMIT MURDER AND HE AS CAPTURED AT THE SCENE.

There should be NO INSANITY DEFENSE UNDER THE LAW.

This is an outrage.

Are we going to get outraged ?

Remember, a CHILD WAS ONE OF THE VICTIMS, IF PEOPLE WANT TO FEEL OUTRAGED THAT A CHILD WAS MURDERED.

Any time now, any time...

It’s logically impossible to be competent to commit a murder and at the same time incompetent to stand trial and receive sentence.

The “insanity” defense is a major problem in our legal system.

If one is able to commit a murder one is sane enough for punishment.

And what really gets me is no one seems that outraged.

People were outraged over Casey Anthony being acquitted.

I guess if Jared Loughner was a pretty young white girl who went out and partied after he murdered just the child - not the adults - then there would be public outcry.

Today it was reported in NY - and on Drudge - that a young Hasidic boy was:

ABDUCTED
WHO KNOWS WHAT
MURDERED
DISMEMBERED

Part of his body was wrapped in a plastic bag and put in a nearby dumptser.

The NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY ARRESTED AN ACCUSED PERPETRATOR AND SOME OF THE CHILD’S REMAINS WERE FOUND IN HIS APARTMENT.

Ok, everyone, - all together now ———

A LITTLE OUTRAGE PLEASE ?

This way, we can follow the trial ON NANCY GRACE FOR THREE YEARS AND HAVE DEMONSTRATIONS AND GET ALL OUTRAGED.

Eh, nothing to see here, move along...

all ?

If he’s competent enough to refuse meds, he’s competent enough to stand trial.

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on FR. :-)

If you take a look here, you will essentially find out that if the perpetrator knew the act was wrong and could conform his behavior to the rules of society, then, regardless of any existing mental illness, defect, or disease, whether permanent or temporary, the perpetrator is guilty.

In Mr. Loughner's case, his own actions before and after the shootings demonstrate that he knew he shouldn't have done what he did, and there was probably not a sufficiently-effective state of delusion to excuse his behavior.

All that being said, I think the idea that "not guilty by reason of insanity" should be removed from our justice system takes things a bit too far. Yes, for many obviously-guilty defendants, it provides a last ditch effort to escape punishment, but it is rarely effective.

And what about putting the shoe on the other foot? Suppose someone slipped you a dose of scopolamine and PCP, and you subsequently killed someone, either accidentally or on purpose, due solely to the effects of the drugs you were involuntarily given. You would be in a mental state in which you were not responsible for your own actions; would it be fair to incarcerate you for several decades because of the actions of another?

America has a severe moral and crime issue.

.. and courts and juries, obviously off their own meds, are shrugging and letting crimes go unpunished.

Fine. Just keep him on a sufficient dosage of sedatives to prevent him from being a danger to himself and others. There’s more than one way to handle a psycho.

would it be fair to incarcerate you for several decades because of the actions of another?

"because of the actions of another"

I think that answers the question of how a hypothetical case like that should be charged. "another" is guilty. Then we get into what was "another's" intent, did they suggest, what were the circumstances of the murder I was accused of; a self-defense situation, was a robbing a store, etc., etc. I think there are far too many questions with a generalized hypothetical like that to make an argument of the necessity of keeping the insanity defense.

The hypothetical is insanity due to "unwitting" ingestion of the substance. I doubt "unwitting" ingestion of an inebriating substance has ever been an actual case where the insanity defense was used, let alone a frequent scenario.

The typical scenario is undoubtedly like Loughner - act like a crazy moron with a freakish smile, say you're insane.

The more outlandish the murder, the more insane you appear.

Any time someone murders someone the murderer could certainly be considered mentally "not all there".

The insanity defense is based on insanity being a "mental illness". Which brings us to the whole "mental health" field. We have allowed our legal geniuses (geniuses at generating caseload and making money for themselves by allowed society to turn into a cesspool of immorality) to say that johnny was "sick", that's why he committed the murder. As if we're supposed to believe it's like johnny had a cold, or polio, or some physical ailment. Being sick is not the fault of the person who's sick. If we use that logic, every murderer was certainly "not right in the head" the day they committed the murder. Look at the young Jewish boy in NY that was recently murdered and dismembered. Is his murderer the model of a civic hero ? Certainly not, if he committed this crime, he is a deranged individual. NEVERTHELESS, allowing him to claim that he is "sick" would allow him to get let off easy on punishment. This sends a signal - TO EVERY WACKO PERSON OUT THERE - that "the system" will allow you to claim you're sick, act wacky enough, and then basically get off.

I have a much better hypothetical. A man who has been in a mental institution for 15 years and wound up there because of a history of drug use and violence which started after discharge from the military where he was subject to combat stress. He is institutionalized, put on medication, and makes tremendous strides in being able to function normally. As long as he stays on his meds, he can control his anger. He feels better, wants to get to a life on the outside, keeps working at it and finally is allowed to move into independent, but monitored housing. He has to stay on his meds and completely refrain from any and all drugs and alcohol, which is does remarkably well at. He even gets married. He's a model citizen, all his neighbors think he is a great guy. Now say his paperwork is mixed up and he does not get his meds, gets stressed, goes to a bar, gets in a fight and kills someone, witnessed by a crowd of people and is arrested at the scene. In that case, I would think there were mitigating circumstances to his actions, and the death penalty would be excessive. That's obviously a case where the institution, housing and prison are used in some combination. The man has served his country and has been for decades making a Herculean effort to be a good citizen, and, most key, he went off his meds because of the paperwork mixup.

On the other hand, we have cases like Jared's . When a family is dysfunctional, it is the family's responsibility. Parents have an obligation to keep their children off drugs until they reach the age of majority, at which point the children, now adults, have the responsibility themselves. Being a messed up kid is the kid's fault once they turn 18. Thats' what we can't get over - everybody's got a hard luck story. Mama didn't love me, etc. In truth, we have turned our back on corporal punishment for children; pointing to cases of abuse, we threw the baby out with the bathwater, and now society views all corporal punishment as abuse. Instead of teaching children the truth, we allow them to believe a lie, that they can do whatever they want with no serious consequences, just talk. Which engenders not only disrespect, but disregard for authority, and leads to more senseless violence perpetrated on innocents, as disrespectful young generations become adults.

There is no EXCUSE for murder. One does not slip and fall and accidentally abuct, murder and dismember a person. It is no accident. There is no excuse. And the righteous penalty for being duly convicted of such a crime is death. This is how the civil government serves the people. If it protects criminals and murderers, it unjustly subjects good people to them.

The death penalty, since it is irrevocable, is simply used righteously only in cases where the evidence is very, very clear, very certain, there is enough evidence, i.e., not just less than certain circumstantial evidence, but very clear, irrefutable evidence. Being caught red-handed is one of those situations, i.e., caught at the scene, caught on video right before the abduction and the police finding the body in your refrigerator, etc.

If the evidence is less certain than that, prison would be the righteous sentence, as if it ever is proved wrong, the falsely accused at least can be released.

And if the evidence is logically weak enough that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the acts happened as the prosecution charges or whether the accused was the perpetrator or perhaps someone else could have been, then, of course, even though the person may look guilty, they would be acquitted by a jury.

Click the Chicks

Spend a Lot of Time at Free Republic? Get Fed a Lot of Information?
Haven't donated yet?
Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10