Replies

HB1189-relative to the plea of guilty but insane.

This bill:

I. Changes the plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" to "guilty but insane."

II. Requires that a defendant who is found guilty but insane shall, upon release from the secure psychiatric unit or upon certification that such person no longer suffers from a mental disease or insanity, be required to serve 25 percent of the time remaining in the sentence, or 25 percent of the time remaining until such person is eligible for parole, in a state prison facility.

HB1189 Bill Text

The NH General Court bill search site: NH BILL SEARCH

Just enter HB1189 in the Bill number section for the complete status of the bill.

To read The FR Post of my column on the Wakefield tragedy that got me started on The "Guilty, But Insane" Bill:

The Depression Defense Should Not Be Allowed

The only concern raised so far was how this bill will work with NH's Truth in Sentencing laws. I had assumed (Yea I Know) that the minmum sentencing would just be changed to go along with the limitations in this bill. Maybe the date was cancelled to check the legality of this, I am not sure.

Truth in Sentencing means that A criminal HAS to Serve their Minmum sentence whether they have been on good behavior or not! (Good Law, but now it may work against me)

The bill changed when it got sent to the legislature. Originally this bill said that it "eliminates their right to be released until they are deemed competent to serve 25% of their sentence or 25% of the time to eligibility of parole in a State Prison Facility, not including time served in the Secure Psychiatric Unit.". The current version in the Legislature states that the criminal would "be required to serve 25 percent of the time remaining in the sentence, or 25 percent of the time remaining until such person is eligible for parole, in a state prison facility.

Depending what happens with the Truth and Sentencing, an amendment will correct this oversight.

One step at a time, and one committee at a time!

Actually, "guilty but insane" makes no sense at all.

Existing law was designed to provide the mentally ill with treatment instead of a prison sentence so they would get better instead of languish untreated in the slammer.

Actually, existing law was designed in recognition of the fact that moral culpability depends upon intent. The only reason the legal concept of "insanity" exists is to distinguish between those who can form intent and those who cannot. If we wish to divorce legal culpability entirely from moral culpability, let's not try to disguise that fact with an intellectually insupportable "guilty but insane" plea.

Personally, I think it would be wrong to hold an insane person legally responsible for a crime. A much better solution would be a law requiring that anyone acquitted of a violent crime by reason of insanity be permanently committed to a secure medical institution.

I understand the Western concept of mens rea, criminal intent. But I've never understood how it bears on actual guilt. Since it is difficult to prove intent, it seems that the case should be built around establishing the actuality of the commission, not the motive, or the perpetrator's state of mind.

Since the victim of a murder is just as dead if his murderer was insane, what difference does the state of mind make? Do we punish the deed or the intent?

Why are the insane not responsible for their actions? I guess I don't understand the ROOTS of mens rea after all.

Can some legal beagle give me a nutshell version of the doctrine's derivation?

As a layman, i.e. a non-lawyer, my concern with regards the insanity defense is that it becomes another legal dodge by the guilty. The insanity argument seems to be employed by criminals who have shown method and calculation in the planning, execution, and subsequent attempts to prevent discovery of a crime. The claim seems to be that they had a "moral hole" in their being which doesn't allow them to comprehend the evil of their act. Fortunately, the public doesn't allow this sort of nonsense to succeed very frequently, in spite of defense counsels' arguments.