From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!zeppo!wheps!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!djj
Newsgroups: net.misc
Title: Re: Replying about Hinkley Re: utzoo!Laura among others.
Article-I.D.: pyuxcc.305
Posted: Wed Jul 14 12:30:52 1982
Received: Thu Jul 15 04:41:10 1982

One of the fundamental issues that must be resolved is the question
of "what is insane/insanity"????  In my opinion, most major defense by
insanity cases come down to which side's psychiatrists are the better
actors.  Granted, there is no cut-and-dried test for insanity, but
certainly the testing procedures need to be identified more clearly.

A related issue here is the constitutional right to a trial by "a jury of
peers."  Can it be argued that a jury of allegedly sane people are
peers to one pleading insanity?  Further, what is on trial in many
of these cases is the findings of the psychiatrists, not the accused.
Is a jury of "average" people able to adequately comprehend the
discussion of schizophrenia, psychoses, etc????

As for the issues of mental institutions being worse than prisons,
this is certainly a matter of degree.  I believe there are arguments
for both sides.  However, prison terms (ignoring for a moment the
issue of parole) are generally much more rigid than commitments to
institutions.  All that is required to get out of a mental hospital
is to "prove" sanity and ability to function in society.  The opportunity
for this process may occur as soon as 3-6 months after commitment.
The convicted felon does not have this opportunity to become "innocent."

Enough rambling from me; let's hear from the rest of you.

Dave Johnson
BTL-PY