Rep. Gifford shooting: The Shooter

Jules A, MSN · Jan 10, 2011

This is a good topic and might get more replies and insight in the psych nurse section. Unfortuately there are no easy answers. I get a sinking feeling in my stomach when I hear media stories of someone who committed a horrific crime that imo could have only been done by someone with mental illness learn they are not considered insane largely because of the contempt an insanity plea seems to generate. I'm not condoning the behavior for one second and absolutely do believe they should be incarcerated even without chance for parole depending on the crime but denying the psychiatric component is also criminal. A recent example is the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart. Not insane? Are you kidding me? Look at the man for crap sake! It doesn't take a professional to see that he is bat **** crazy and again I'd advocate him never being let out to offend again however that doesn't negate the fact that he is mentally ill and should receive treatment. Sadly our society has a long way to go when it comes to understanding and dealing with mental illness.

elkpark · Jan 10, 2011

"Sane" and "insane" are legal concepts, not medical/psychiatric concepts, and I don't think the issue has anything to do with "contempt." The standard for being found "sane" and competent to stand trial is quite low. "Just" being seriously mentally ill is not, by itself, sufficient (and, indeed, the vast majority of the mentally ill, even the seriously mentally ill, never intentionally hurt anyone else or break the law in any significant, dramatic way). Lots of people are "bat **** crazy" without meeting the legal standard for being "insane." This is why defense attorneys never use an insanity defense unless they truly have absolutely no other option; and, even then, it's successful in only a small minority of cases.

"Consider the Jeffrey Dahmer case. Dahmer was arrested in Milwaukee in 1991 after he had killed at least 13 victims. His apartment contained the remains of many young men who he had brutally murdered and dissected. He poured acid on his victims, cut them into pieces and preserved their heads and genitals. He treated, preserved and decorated the skulls of his victims. His crimes are a litany of perversion and torture that is rare even for sexually motivated serial killers. In court, his attorneys attempted to plead Dahmer not guilty by reason of insanity. But prosecutors were able to prove that Dahmer knew full well that killing was against the law and what he was doing was wrong. The insanity plea was not accepted in his case. If someone like Dahmer could not be categorized as legally insane, then it stands up to reason that the criteria for insanity must surely be a difficult standard to meet.

This is the reality of the insanity defense in America: difficult to plead, seldom used and almost never successful. But in that small number of cases where it is successful, it is sometimes manipulated or abused in a way that often grabs headlines and captures the imagination of the public. Ultimately, only a jury can decide the issue of insanity, which in itself may be the most controversial aspect about the insanity defense. In other words, people who have no training in the field, rarely come into contact with the mentally ill and have a minimal understanding of the issues involved, make legal, long-lasting judgments that are frequently based on shifting criteria."

All about the insanity defense by Mark Gado Crime Library on truTV.com

I, personally, am glad that it's not easier than it is to be successful with an NGRI defense in court. This is one of those "slippery slope" kind of things, IMO.

Liddle Noodnik · Jan 16, 2011

Thanks guys. I really appreciate your responding!

I did end up posting something similar in the nursing central section and got more responses:

The Az. shootings - a psychiatric perspective - Family, Politics, and Entertainment

I didn't post it in the psych nursing section cuz it seemed more about "me," public awareness, etc. Not a whole lot about providing care. But that's just what I was thinking at the time.

I was also expressing sadness that with my own disability I'm not able to do more about mental health awareness/education.

I'm feeling better, having vented a bit. thanks!

morte, LPN, LVN · Jan 16, 2011

"Sane" and "insane" are legal concepts, not medical/psychiatric concepts, and I don't think the issue has anything to do with "contempt." The standard for being found "sane" and competent to stand trial is quite low. "Just" being seriously mentally ill is not, by itself, sufficient (and, indeed, the vast majority of the mentally ill, even the seriously mentally ill, never intentionally hurt anyone else or break the law in any significant, dramatic way). Lots of people are "bat **** crazy" without meeting the legal standard for being "insane." This is why defense attorneys never use an insanity defense unless they truly have absolutely no other option; and, even then, it's successful in only a small minority of cases.
"Consider the Jeffrey Dahmer case. Dahmer was arrested in Milwaukee in 1991 after he had killed at least 13 victims. His apartment contained the remains of many young men who he had brutally murdered and dissected. He poured acid on his victims, cut them into pieces and preserved their heads and genitals. He treated, preserved and decorated the skulls of his victims. His crimes are a litany of perversion and torture that is rare even for sexually motivated serial killers. In court, his attorneys attempted to plead Dahmer not guilty by reason of insanity. But prosecutors were able to prove that Dahmer knew full well that killing was against the law and what he was doing was wrong. The insanity plea was not accepted in his case. If someone like Dahmer could not be categorized as legally insane, then it stands up to reason that the criteria for insanity must surely be a difficult standard to meet.
This is the reality of the insanity defense in America: difficult to plead, seldom used and almost never successful. But in that small number of cases where it is successful, it is sometimes manipulated or abused in a way that often grabs headlines and captures the imagination of the public. Ultimately, only a jury can decide the issue of insanity, which in itself may be the most controversial aspect about the insanity defense. In other words, people who have no training in the field, rarely come into contact with the mentally ill and have a minimal understanding of the issues involved, make legal, long-lasting judgments that are frequently based on shifting criteria."
All about the insanity defense by Mark Gado Crime Library on truTV.com
I, personally, am glad that it's not easier than it is to be successful with an NGRI defense in court. This is one of those "slippery slope" kind of things, IMO.

what we need is a guilty, though insane....rather than not guilty by reason of insanity....

elkpark · Jan 16, 2011

what we need is a guilty, though insane....rather than not guilty by reason of insanity....

But the whole point of there being a legal standard for "insane," and one of the key, foundational principles of modern jurisprudence (here and in many other countries), is that, if one is "insane" by the standards of the legal system (and, again, it's a legal term, not a medical term, and with a specific definition -- not just a synonym for "mentally ill" -- although the general public uses the term v. casually), one is not responsible or accountable for one's actions -- this concept goes back to the mid-19th century. The idea is that, if an individual is truly that incapacitated, it would be cruel and unreasonable to hold her/him to the same standards of behavior and accountability and punish them the same as everyone else -- the same as we have a different standard of accountability and punishment for children within the legal system than we do adults.

Again, as the legal system in the US currently operates, hardly anyone qualifies as insane and escapes responsibility for her/his actions. The "insanity" defense is v. rarely used, and, in the cases where it is used, v. rarely successful. It's been a long time since I've looked seriously into any of this, but I believe (if I'm recalling correctly) that some states do have a "guilty but mentally ill" verdict option, but, again, that would apply to individuals whose mental illness played a role in their crime but they do not meet the legal standard of "insane."

justashooter · Jan 17, 2011

prolly not insane, just had a really nasty personailty.

Liddle Noodnik · Jan 17, 2011

prolly not insane, just had a really nasty personailty.

Your user name gives me pause given the name of the thread, lol!!

Yeah, who knows what was going on with this guy!

Barbara Hessinger · Jan 17, 2011

Interesting discussion.

I think that the guy was pushed into a corner by constant rejection which was partially his own fault.

His behavior got him kicked out of college, he lost several jobs and the army rejected him. That's a lot to deal with and no doubt left him out there hopeless and he probably developed feelings of hate and anger towards society.

The current economic environment will push some people over the edge and as a society, we have to be aware and not single out those who need our help.

Liddle Noodnik · Jan 18, 2011

Interesting discussion.
I think that the guy was pushed into a corner by constant rejection which was partially his own fault.
His behavior got him kicked out of college, he lost several jobs and the army rejected him. That's a lot to deal with and no doubt left him out there hopeless and he probably developed feelings of hate and anger towards society.
The current economic environment will push some people over the edge and as a society, we have to be aware and not single out those who need our help.

Thanks Barbara! All good points. And the longer someone is sick, the worse their work history, the fewer the friends and family, etc., etc., it just compounds itself.

One key, when losing friends and family members due to the illness, is to find a support network of friends also in recovery, a "chosen family" if you will, to help you through the bumps, and help you understand when you need more INTENSIVE help. The person who goes it alone entirely is the person whose prognosis is really poor One common symptom of many of these illnesses is a tendency to isolate, it is REALLY hard to fight that but so important

Here's a link I got from another thread about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/14/mental.health.loughner/index.html

Jules A, MSN · Jan 18, 2011

prolly not insane, just had a really nasty personailty.

Although I personally think it is inappropriate I really hope you are joking. :confused:

justashooter · Jan 18, 2011

Although I personally think it is inappropriate I really hope you are joking.

nope. dead serious. seen a few similar cases from close up, and discussed the clinical opinion of the defendendants with the court appointed psychiatrist. this guy was way too organised to be mentally incapacitated. he is classic anti-social personality from what i have read of his profile. he just has a really nasty personality, and needs to be put away for multiple life terms.