From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!rabbit!jj Newsgroups: net.misc Title: Replying about Hinkley Re: utzoo!Laura among others. Article-I.D.: rabbit.601 Posted: Mon Jul 12 01:39:04 1982 Received: Tue Jul 13 05:09:23 1982 The problem that concerns me about the Hinkley episode more than anything else is that a completely RATIONAL person, who wanted to do what Hinkley did for some strange reason, could easily hit upon the exact route of escape that Hinkley used. If a sane man did not want to go to jail, it is entirely likely that that man would be willing to have his sanity questioned. It is also likely that that person would encourage exactly that. I do not claim that this occurred in the Hinkley case, but I can see no reason why a sane person, or a nearly sane person(don't even bother to write me about "nearly sane") would not, given that the deed has been committed, provide as much evidence for insanity as could be provided under the circumstances. To do otherwise would not be "sane". I grant that the insane would do exactly the same thing, but not by intent. The question raised is thus, "By what method can society prevent a sane, but ill intending, person from using the insanity defense to that person's aid, while still maintaining a haven for the truly ill?" I do not intend to argue the question of ill intent as related to sanity, as the result of defining ill intent as insanity is to ascribe all crime to insanity. A discussion of the purpose of detention is another interesting issue, to wit: "Is the purpose of detention to punish, or to protect society?" The corollaries are infinite. I realize that these questions have been asked before, however I am attempting to steer this discussion toward the discovery of solutions, and away from commentary for its own sake.