Steelwind_Oo posted:

---

The problem I have with all the cases of insanity pleas or whatever is it doesn't change the fact that someone died that wouldn't have died otherwise and that (assuming this is the case) wasn't doing anything that deserved death. So Billy Bonko throws a gasket and drives over a crowd I don't care if he was sane or not at the time he needs to be removed from society so that it doesn't happen again. Call it a punishment or call it common sense. And I don't mean removed from society to a padded cell for a couple months until he convinces everyone he is all better.

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

I believe you are always responsible for your actions no matter what.

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

Steelwind_Oo posted:

---

The problem I have with all the cases of insanity pleas or whatever is it doesn't change the fact that someone died that wouldn't have died otherwise and that (assuming this is the case) wasn't doing anything that deserved death. So Billy Bonko throws a gasket and drives over a crowd I don't care if he was sane or not at the time he needs to be removed from society so that it doesn't happen again. Call it a punishment or call it common sense. And I don't mean removed from society to a padded cell for a couple months until he convinces everyone he is all better.

---

And it gets worse the more people realize there really is no God out there and afterlife and other BS and that we only get ONE SHOT at life.

When we realize this, life becomes even more dearer.

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

I believe you are always responsible for your actions no matter what.  To me the question has always been about whether the punishment should be the same and I don't believe it should be in certain situations.

---

purplehugmonkey posted:

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

I believe you are always responsible for your actions no matter what.  To me the question has always been about whether the punishment should be the same and I don't believe it should be in certain situations.

---

Agreed. Anytime you infringe on the freedom of someone else, you have to be held responsible.

If it's deliberate, you should be punished, and if it's not deliberate, you should be removed from free society in order to avoid the possibility of a repeat occurrence.

The bottom line is that other people's freedom trumps your freedom from responsibility for your actions due to the brain injury.

---

Steelwind_Oo posted:

---

The problem I have with all the cases of insanity pleas or whatever is it doesn't change the fact that someone died that wouldn't have died otherwise and that (assuming this is the case) wasn't doing anything that deserved death. So Billy Bonko throws a gasket and drives over a crowd I don't care if he was sane or not at the time he needs to be removed from society so that it doesn't happen again. Call it a punishment or call it common sense. And I don't mean removed from society to a padded cell for a couple months until he convinces everyone he is all better.

---

.-Vega-. posted:

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

I believe you are always responsible for your actions no matter what.

---

Totally wrong rofl

---

Hyperimiator posted:

---

Steelwind_Oo posted:

---

The problem I have with all the cases of insanity pleas or whatever is it doesn't change the fact that someone died that wouldn't have died otherwise and that (assuming this is the case) wasn't doing anything that deserved death. So Billy Bonko throws a gasket and drives over a crowd I don't care if he was sane or not at the time he needs to be removed from society so that it doesn't happen again. Call it a punishment or call it common sense. And I don't mean removed from society to a padded cell for a couple months until he convinces everyone he is all better.

---

I 100% concur.

---

Maleraka posted:

---

It's such a massively complex organ that no two cases could be the same. While many people would still be legally sane, their actions would be all over the board.

---

Webscar posted:

---

Yes, they are accountable for their actions and should be reprimanded accordingly. However, due to their ailment I believe their punishment should be modified accordingly. A Psych Ward would be a proper place for them; not a prison cell. Assuming you could prove that their lack of mental capacity was the cause of the outbreak. Additionally, I believe that those involved in the mental care for the individual should be placed under scrutiny and evaluated to see if they aided in the crime via neglectful practices in managing the person's disability.

---

Reapist posted:

---

I think it all boils down to one simple question: Did the person realize that what he did was considered to be wrong by society?

---

Gaevren posted:

---

Webscar posted:

---

Yes, they are accountable for their actions and should be reprimanded accordingly. However, due to their ailment I believe their punishment should be modified accordingly. A Psych Ward would be a proper place for them; not a prison cell. Assuming you could prove that their lack of mental capacity was the cause of the outbreak. Additionally, I believe that those involved in the mental care for the individual should be placed under scrutiny and evaluated to see if they aided in the crime via neglectful practices in managing the person's disability.

---

Like doctors? Or family members?

---

Anebriated posted:

---

"Ultimately the Doctor is responsible if they incorrectly diagnose the level of care the individual needs and allows them to return to society either (un)medicated, under (or not) the supervision of another individual, or otherwise. If they are allowed back into society and fail to take their medication, or their responsible charge fails at the duties they agree to... then that would negate the liability the Doctor faces. If the doctor simply failed to see how bad off the individual was or potential level of harm that could come from their release, then the Doctor would be held responsible."


you must really dislike doctors webscar, or you don't realize the predicament that puts doctors in. suppose a doctor is taking care of a schizophrenic. most schizos are pretty harmless, being nuts doesn't automatically make you violent.

for one, doctors cannot predict the outcomes of individual patients with mental diseases or brain damage- at least not very well. if some 20 something comes down with their first psychotic episode a doctor can't look at them and say if they are going to have another, sink into a constant psychosis, or never have one again.

if the buck stops at the doctor and you are asking for more judgement that is possible then they will err on the side of caution and start locking up everyone with a major depression.

---

Webscar posted:

---

Additionally, if the situation was outside of the Doctors control (Meaning they had no reason to suspect something like this might happen) then the Doctor would be exempt.

---

Webscar posted:

---

Gaevren posted:

---

Webscar posted:

---

Yes, they are accountable for their actions and should be reprimanded accordingly. However, due to their ailment I believe their punishment should be modified accordingly. A Psych Ward would be a proper place for them; not a prison cell. Assuming you could prove that their lack of mental capacity was the cause of the outbreak. Additionally, I believe that those involved in the mental care for the individual should be placed under scrutiny and evaluated to see if they aided in the crime via neglectful practices in managing the person's disability.

---

Like doctors? Or family members?

---

The Doctor would be in responsible charge unless a family member forced them to be removed from service to the individual. If the individual is being cared for by family members and they agree to the responsibility therein they can remove some, but not all, of the liability the doctor would face.

Ultimately the Doctor is responsible if they incorrectly diagnose the level of care the individual needs and allows them to return to society either (un)medicated, under (or not) the supervision of another individual, or otherwise. If they are allowed back into society and fail to take their medication, or their responsible charge fails at the duties they agree to... then that would negate the liability the Doctor faces. If the doctor simply failed to see how bad off the individual was or potential level of harm that could come from their release, then the Doctor would be held responsible.

If a family member or otherwise removed the individual from care or accepted the responsibility of the individual for what added care was necessary upon release then they would also be liable for what happened. If they were ill-informed or if the situation was outside of their control then they would be exempt.

Additionally, if the situation was outside of the Doctors control (Meaning they had no reason to suspect something like this might happen) then the Doctor would be exempt.

---

Hyperimiator posted:

---

Steelwind_Oo posted:

---

The problem I have with all the cases of insanity pleas or whatever is it doesn't change the fact that someone died that wouldn't have died otherwise and that (assuming this is the case) wasn't doing anything that deserved death. So Billy Bonko throws a gasket and drives over a crowd I don't care if he was sane or not at the time he needs to be removed from society so that it doesn't happen again. Call it a punishment or call it common sense. And I don't mean removed from society to a padded cell for a couple months until he convinces everyone he is all better.

---

I 100% concur.

---

Gaevren posted:

---

What happens when the doctor says "this level of care/services is necessary for this person" and the insurance company won't pay for it and the family can't? Who then is responsible?

Again, I'm thinking more in terms of my co-worker's husband. Insurance paid for the surgery, and a portion of the rehab- enough to get him walking and talking again, essentially. After that, even though he needs specific services in order to essentially help him re-wire his brain to where it needs to be, they said "tough nuts, figure it out on your own." There's no possible way she can pay for that level of care (it would run into the six figures in no time).

---

Anebriated posted:

---

there are no good predictors of dangerous behavior at the individual level. in california you can be held for 72 hours if a doc or cop claims you are a danger to yourself and others. the way that usually happens is you have totally lost it or you just climbed over the rail of a bridge and almost jumped. basically the holds are all after someone has done something extreme. there is no good predictor to use before such behavior, no legitimate way to use them beforehand without locking up a bunch of people unnecessarily.


when you say have a reason to suspect something might happen i have literally no clue what you are talking about. you may think there are obvious warning signs if you read news stories and their ridiculous hindsight, but reality is different.

---

Gaevren posted:

---

Webscar posted:

---

Gaevren posted:

---

[quote=Webscar]Yes, they are accountable for their actions and should be reprimanded accordingly. However, due to their ailment I believe their punishment should be modified accordingly. A Psych Ward would be a proper place for them; not a prison cell. Assuming you could prove that their lack of mental capacity was the cause of the outbreak. Additionally, I believe that those involved in the mental care for the individual should be placed under scrutiny and evaluated to see if they aided in the crime via neglectful practices in managing the person's disability.

---

Like doctors? Or family members?

---

The Doctor would be in responsible charge unless a family member forced them to be removed from service to the individual. If the individual is being cared for by family members and they agree to the responsibility therein they can remove some, but not all, of the liability the doctor would face.

Ultimately the Doctor is responsible if they incorrectly diagnose the level of care the individual needs and allows them to return to society either (un)medicated, under (or not) the supervision of another individual, or otherwise. If they are allowed back into society and fail to take their medication, or their responsible charge fails at the duties they agree to... then that would negate the liability the Doctor faces. If the doctor simply failed to see how bad off the individual was or potential level of harm that could come from their release, then the Doctor would be held responsible.

If a family member or otherwise removed the individual from care or accepted the responsibility of the individual for what added care was necessary upon release then they would also be liable for what happened. If they were ill-informed or if the situation was outside of their control then they would be exempt.

Additionally, if the situation was outside of the Doctors control (Meaning they had no reason to suspect something like this might happen) then the Doctor would be exempt.

---

Anebriated posted:

---

Reapist posted:

---

I think it all boils down to one simple question: Did the person realize that what he did was considered to be wrong by society?

---

it is definitely not that simple. you may know right from wrong but have brain damage in the part of your brain that allows you to inhibit your behavior. you're referring to the mcnaughton rule, which is old. boo.



but as soon as you accept that brain damage or dysfunction can impair the way you regulate your behavior you have to ask the much harder question: "how much dysfunction counts? where is the line?"

---

Webscar posted:

---

If you know he'll likely kill someone and by a court of law it can be proven that the warning signs are there; then yes you have some liability.

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

If you know you're a danger because you can't stop stabbing things, and it will escalate to people, the responsible thing to do is tell a mental health professional that you may be a danger to others.

---

Anebriated posted:

---

do you guys have experience with very mentally ill people? you guys blab on and on about how self-evident it is if a person is dangerous or not. it really makes me doubt if you have ever talked to such a person. many serious illnesses fluctuate wildly. one day they can't get out of bed they're so depressed and the next they are tying a noose. you think it's obvious or something?

---

silvadel posted:

---

If you are not able to be held accountable for your actions then whoever in charge of you should be. In essence if you are so very messed up that you can hurt somebody because you do not think it is wrong -- well then your guardian should have been watching you. Nobody should just be released into the population without someone watching over you if you are not accountable.

---

.-Vega-. posted:

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

Steelwind_Oo posted:

---

The problem I have with all the cases of insanity pleas or whatever is it doesn't change the fact that someone died that wouldn't have died otherwise and that (assuming this is the case) wasn't doing anything that deserved death. So Billy Bonko throws a gasket and drives over a crowd I don't care if he was sane or not at the time he needs to be removed from society so that it doesn't happen again. Call it a punishment or call it common sense. And I don't mean removed from society to a padded cell for a couple months until he convinces everyone he is all better.

---

And it gets worse the more people realize there really is no God out there and afterlife and other BS and that we only get ONE SHOT at life.

When we realize this, life becomes even more dearer.

---

Like being an administrator for a 3rd rate obscure video game website

---

-Mithan- posted:

---

I believe you are always responsible for your actions no matter what.  To me the question has always been about whether the punishment should be the same and I don't believe it should be in certain situations.

---