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