Until recently, I thought the answer to this question was obvious, but I am gradually becoming aware that a large and influential portion of the population simply do not or will not accept this link. See this from Guardian April 30th 2015:
'Am I being executed?' Brazilian killed by Indonesia unaware until end, says priest. Priest who counselled Rodrigo Gularte – who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder – says he tried in vain for three days to to explain to the inmate he was about to die"
I have not read all the hundreds of comments on this article, but people objected to the execution for 3 main reasons: objection to death penalty; drug dealing should not be punished; procedural errors. No one seemed at all bothered by the fact that a psychotic person was being shot, when it is surely beyond argument that the disordered thinking and poor judgement in psychosis can lead to crime. For them, no psychosis: no crime. Would any representative of a mental health organisation like to take the opportunity here to speak up for the criminally insane?
The question is: Can someone commit a crime because of their schizophrenia? This question begs at least two other questions which must be examined. First question: What is the crime (theft, assault, murder: The second question is: What kind of schizophrenia? I will reverse the order in answering these. Murder is un-rare in most types of schizophrenia. However, if we were to argue that someone committed murder due to schizophrenia it would have be demonstrated that at the time of the murder the person acted while under the influence of hallucinatory and/or delusional thoughts.There have been paranoid schizophrenics who either murdered or assaulted another because "Voices" were telling him or her to kill. There are others who became visionary killers because the "voice of God" told them to punish sinners such as prostitutes. However, the hearing of these voices were their and the murderer did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the murder. There is also a caveat to this at least in terms of the person who hears the voice of God telling them to punish the prostitutes. In this situation the person might say that he or she knows the difference between right and wrong and then say if God tells you to do something you do it and it must be right. There have been such murderers who have been sentenced to death, even though psychiatrists testified that the person was of unsound mined and that the person genuinely believed their serial killing was ordered by God. I can't really answer for other crimes such as theft because I haven't heard of auditory hallucinations of voices telling someone to steal, at least no patient I know off has ever told me about voices telling the to steal.
Certainly in the UK and USA, "diminished responsibility" and "not guilty by reason of insanity" are well established legal defences that in some circumstances prevent a case even being fully tried in court. A diagnosis of schizophrenia, bi-polar, schizoaffective disorder and many other psychosis-related conditions can be sufficient for a defendant to be certified as unfit to stand trial, let alone be sentenced and punished for the crime.
My feeling is this is somewhat controversial amongst the non-scientific community due to the lack of understanding of psychiatric disease. People may accuse patients of "faking it" to avoid facing up to their crimes, or see mental disorders as a lesser form of illness that people should just "get over". The legal systems is some less developed countries may also follow this line of thinking, as Indonesia seems to going by this case.
I agree Philip the less developed countries seem to take the view of many lay persons This is due to both a lack of understanding of what the more severe mental disorders are and the sufferer of these conditions feel as though they are being tortured particularly after medication has the effect of decreasing the hallucinations and delusions and the patient becomes somewhat aware of what is happening. This does not happen in all cases. Some people in the West have attempted to feign the symptoms of an illness and usually get found out but sometimes not.
And yes there still do remain a lot of people that say "get over it" OR " Pull up your socks"
Dear Anthony, William, Philip and all those who would be following this question, thanx for the question and your insight into the question.
If there is anything like good or bad (there is none, I believe as all is social construction), and if everyone has the same opinion about good or bad not just because of the law (which is blind), then serious crimes are bad and need some sort of befitting treatment (punishment, or medication or rehabilitation) no matter if the person has a mental illness or not. When witch hunting by "intelligent elite" (rich and powerful including bureaucrats and politicians) backed by their own mental deviation puts a blame of criminality on the simpletons who are kept ignorant and are expected to obey laws that are "freedom restricting" rather than "freedom guaranteeing" (Habermas), this question becomes pertinent. When rich and powerful elite subject people to unwanted stresses of all kinds (socially born and bread), including the mental illness, it is only easy to punish them, or hang them rather than to accept our own weaknesses, treachery, and organised system failures and ask for self punishment.
War time murderers (the good Army of both sides) is kind of killing due to systematically created mass hysteria and paranoia, or delusions of grandiose, and once on war front, to save them from the other side ...all become legitimate due to our social construction of good and bad. This itself is insanity at its peak, sadly though we all feel proud of it. Aren't we born as a race to bow down to powers to save us from any repercussions? Aren't we led by rich and powerful? Are we independent while caring for the whole? Are we free from our greed, struggle for existence in a global society that we have made to run not after life sustaining resources but after artificially created invisible giant in $$.
For simple people like me, if someone kills someone else for no reason in his or her mind is mentally unfit in today's society. He/she should not be punished, however steps need be taken to avoid such happenings. Society as a whole has to be examined in such cases, not just the insane person. Moreover, this society SHOULD INCLUDE politicians, bureaucrats, financial corporations and judiciary elites.
I wish that happens, however, I am sure that will not happen ...but many of us will keep on trying as the history teaches us!
Thank you all ...
Dear Suresh and all,
Firstly Suresh you are absolutely right when you say the law is blind, but it is also like a tunnel only having two directions, in or out. What I am getting to at this point is the law only accepts either guilty or not guilty. It also considers documented evidence of mental disorder and whether or not the person knew the difference between right or wrong. So if someone said that they know that murder is wrong you are guilty and get punished (death penalty or life). So if a person murders 6 or 10 people as a serial killer and says he or she knows that murder is wrong by law he or she is not mentally incompetent or suffering from metal disorder. But the question that arises; is that person mentally ill? or to put it differently; do have to be mentally or emotionally disordered to kill, up close and personal and feel no remorse. I believe that you would have to be. What should be done with the person leads to many moral and ethical problems (death penalty, treatment in a secure hospital, life in prison and so forth). The original question is by no means easy to answer without discussing the differences between the law as written and justice.
It's a loaded question, as just asking the question is stigmatizing. And when asking the question of crime and psychosis, one automatically thinks of murdering others, instead of the other lesser crimes. Society just equates schizophrenia with violence, although the literature and experts have mixed opinions on this association. The focus on determining if the person with schizophrenia knew what was right or wrong at the time of the crime is not logical at all...when you have impaired reality testing as your core deficit, how can you know what is right or wrong when you can't even tell what is real or imagined?
That is exactly right. How can one differentiate between right and wrong when their sense of reality is clouded in psychosis. However, when someone with PTSD or BPD and other personality disorders as well many non-psychotic disorders commit crime they can and do experience altered states of reality and require treatment as opposed to many of the retributive and revenge punishments. We must open our eyes to the fact that while some feign mental disorder most don't. Kleptomania for example, (persistent, uncontrollable stealing as in shoplifting) has an element of dissociation and these individuals will say "I don't know why I stole that, I don't even need it" help is required and not prison.
People who suffer psychotic disorders are more likely to be violent (on average) however this is due to a small sub-set of those people who are diagnosed with some form of schizophrenia;
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/6/490.full
.
Generally speaking, it is when someone prone to delusions of persecution or paranoia is experiencing an acute episode that they may act out violently. In these cases the violence is almost always directed at a family member, partner or neighbour. The incident typically takes place in the home.
People suffering serious mental illness are actually MUCH more likely to harm themselves than someone else;
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/schizophrenia/are-people-with-schizophrenia-violent.shtml
.
William, I tend to agree with most of what you have written above, but I would dispute your suggestion that in order to kill someone at close quarters and feel no remorse you must be mentally ill. Perfectly "healthy" people can be en-cultured into viewing other groups of people as less than human or as a threat and feel quite righteous about killing them. Combat soldiers "just doing their job" or staff of Nazi death camps tend to spring to mind but there are many examples of this. It wasn't that long ago that public executions were a festive entertainment event in all European cities, and the torture and slow murder of poor people, criminals, heathens and the intellectually disabled was viewed as not only desirable but necessary.
Obviously most people suffering psychotic disorders do not commit violent crimes.
There are identifiable risk factors for violent offending in schizophrenia;
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2006/new-factors-identified-for-predicting-violence-in-schizophrenia.shtml
.
However the chance of detecting potential mass murderers before the event is slim;
>
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/12/jared_loughner_mass_murderers_diagnose/singleton/
.
The people you really need to worry about (in terms of committing violent offences towards others) are functional sociopaths, not people suffering schizophrenia. These are people who have no empathy and are quite happy to treat others as objects for their own gratification, but they are also well enough organised to plan ahead and to cover their tracks after the event. However, (like people diagnosed with schizophrenia) most people who meet the diagnostic criteria for sociopathy never commit violent offences either. They are probably more likely to end as senior executives or politicians.
I have worked with many individuals who have been diagnosed with psychotic disorders and who have ended up in the forensic mental health system due to "committing crimes". Typically they have not harmed others, they have instead been incarcerated due to petty theft, acts of "offensive behaviour", or for damage to property (occasionally involving arson). These charges typically result from unplanned and disorganised/irrational behaviour occurring during episodes of frank psychosis. Occasionally they are the result of the person acting out in frustration at the way they are being treated by community mental health services, social security, or other agencies.
Case history;
A homeless client of mine, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in his car for some time. He had discovered that he could park at the International Airport without paying for a parking ticket.
He had a psychotic episode. Police were called to respond to an incident, and found my client naked, shouting happily and responding to unseen stimuli, giggling hysterically, and dancing around his car which was on fire. They arrested him, took him to a local lock-up, where he was held on remand and charged with arson, property damage (as two nearby cars had their paint damaged by the fire) and a number of other offences.
When I got to read the police report, one of the officers had recorded that my client was "dancing happily around the burning car, throwing his clothes onto the fire, laughing aloud and giggling insanely, ignoring clear directions from the responding officers, saying things that didn't make sense, and talking to people who weren't there".
It astounds me that trained law enforcement officers would think that the appropriate response to such an incident was to hand-cuff this man and take him to a police station and file charges. The officers observed these behaviours and apparently did not think to call for paramedics or emergency mental health services, or to take the "suspect" to a hospital for a psychiatric assessment (in restraints if necessary).
Lacking the funds to post bail, my client spent several months in a maximum security facility awaiting trial. Because the fire occurred at the International Airport, it was on federal territory, which complicated things immeasurably. Also the companies that insured the other cars damaged in the incident wanted a conviction to resolve their own processes.
None of this was a therapeutic experience for my client.
So, Anthony asks; "Can someone commit a crime because of their schizophrenia?" My client had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and he was charged with a number of criminal offences due to his behaviour whilst suffering psychosis.
Was he potentially a threat to others? Quite possibly. Was he responsible for his actions at the time of the incident? I do not believe so. I do believe that the way the criminal justice system responded to this incident was extremely expensive and actively counterproductive.Please discuss...
Regards,
Paul.
I agree Paul that I didn't talk about soldiers who go to battle or Genocidal maniacs Yes they can kill without a lot of regret. Some soldiers will show remorse due to the action but not remorse about wrong doing. Having said this though there some who enter treatment programs at the VA for all sorts of psychological reasons. What I was speaking about were the individuals who murder and not kill in combat or self-defence.
Before we start criticising less developed countries, we ought to get our own houses in order. I have just found an incomplete list on the Death Penalty Information Site of 23 cases with obvious mental illness executed this century in the USA. This includes at least 7 with schizophrenia, 5 bipolar. I left that website doubting my own sanity. For example, two cases were given antipsychotic medication so that they were sane when executed! The insanity of the US legal system is beyond belief.
"if someone kills someone else for no reason in his or her mind is mentally unfit in today's society"
I published some years ago a review of homicides in Britain in the 1950s. The more likely the homicide had been planned and premeditated, the more likely the perpetrator to be mentally ill, and the less likely were they a common criminal or to have been executed.
Hi Anthony,
Can you post a PDF or a link to the review you mentioned?
Cheers,
Paul.
Yes Anthony if someone kills for no reason whatsoever there is mental illness involved. Although ,at the time of commission of the murder without reason and unfit for society, would this mean that the person should be jailed or assessed for psychiatric treated? I believe in societies like ours here we speak of compassion and human dignity we are bound elect treatment over punishment. However, I think there is always a reason behind a murder. We speak of motiveless murders. If a person hears voices telling him or her to kill is that not a motive. If a person is asked why they killed another person and they "I wanted to see how it felt" is that not motive. During robbery if the criminal kills the victim the motive if fairly clear--he or she does so not to be identified. Most murders will have a motive and up to the psychologists, psychiatrists and criminalist to ascertain that motive or reason.
Anthony, going back to your original question...no. People with impaired reality testing from psychosis are not capable of committing crimes. It is typical of shrinks to be tangential and distract from answering the question that is asked. If we are not clear on our stance on psychosis and capacity, then what is the public to think?
while the answer is "yes," it is important to note that:
1-persons with schizophrenia are more often the victims of violence, not the perpetrators
2-the more cognitively impaired the less likely one is to be able to commit a premeditated crime, and persons with schizophrenia have cognitive impairment (which does not mean that there are not schizophrenics who are brilliant, e.g., Elyn Saks, whose book THE CENTER WILL NOT HOLD is a must read
3-hopefully, treatments for the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia will help persons with schizophrenia, leading to recovery, not criminality.
ATTACHED FIND A PAPER ON PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF COGNITIVE DEFICITS; IMPORTANT, ALTHOUGH THE ONLY TREATMENT WE HAVE AT PRESENT THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE EFFECT IS COGNITIVE REMEDIATIONS; MEDALIA ET AL. MAKES THE CASE FOR WORKING TOWARDS INTEGRATING PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY AND COGNITIVE REMEDIATION TO TREAT COGNITIVE DYSFUNCTION IN THE PSYCHOTIC DISORDERS
Article Integrating psychopharmacology and cognitive remediation to ...
Article Pharmacotherapy of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia
It's not about cognition...it's about reality testing. This is why psychiatric experts on the stand have such differing viewpoints on the same question...they focus on their pet projects, and reference studies which back their claims. Psychosis and capacity...OXYMORON.
Yes Anthony if someone kills for no reason whatsoever there is mental illness involved.
Whilst I agree with the rest of your last comment, I am not sure I understand this first sentence. If a mentally ill person kills someone, I think there is always a reason however bizarre, for it. For the mentally normal, I am not so sure. Take the case of a fight: someone is punched, falls down, hits their head on the ground, and dies. Their opponent has no reason to kill, since he never formulated that intention in the first place . Nevertheless, juries will usually convict the person of murder.
"Can you post a PDF or a link to the review you mentioned?"
I am embarrassed to admit I do not have an electronic copy of my review. Even if I had, I don't think I am allowed to put up on RG the version as printed in the journal.
The article is: The Iller the Killer, the Worse the Purpose in J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1998;26:683-6.
"the more cognitively impaired the less likely one is to be able to commit a premeditated crime"
I doubt that this is generally true. See results below for suicide from Batty et al BMJ 2010;340:c2506:
"17 736 (1.6%) men had at least one hospital admission for attempted suicide by any means during follow-up. After adjustment for age and socioeconomic status, lower IQ scores were associated with an elevated risk of attempted suicide by any means (hazard ratio per standard deviation decrease in IQ=1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 1.60), with stepwise increases in risk across the full IQ range (P for trend
reality testing is part of cognition....but people are using terms in differing ways....
my point was that persons with schizophrenia have problems with information processing which can lead to misperception....
my bottom line is that people kill other people for all kinds of reasons, and that to single out persons with schizophrenia misses the big picture
Since my comments apparently are like a red flag to a bull, let me further upset some of you: I am also against the death penalty for anyone
Hi Lewis,
I am strongly opposed to the death penalty, for a variety of reasons, not least that courts get it wrong sometimes, and you can't say "sorry, we convicted you of a crime you did not commit" to someone you have executed.
Here's some rather infamous cases from where I live;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Beamish
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Button_%28campaigner%29
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mallard
The people suspected of being the real perpetrators in these cases were sociopaths who killed others for pleasure. They did not suffer psychotic disorders.
Dear Anthony,
An input from Finland:
Increased deep sleep in a medication-free, detoxified female offender with schizophrenia, alcoholism and a history of attempted homicide: Case report
Nina Lindberg, Pekka Tani, Pirjo Takala, Eila Sailas, Hanna Putkonen, Markku Eronen, Matti Virkkunen
BMC Psychiatry. 2004; 4: 35.
Another surreal case (Bucks Herald Sep 15 2015):
"Alan Blake, prosecuting said: “Clarke had felt so aggrieved about the proposal of his discharge (from the psychiatric hospital) that he went into a shop in the town centre and bought a kitchen knife.
“He returned to a convenience store he had earlier been to where he saw a shop assistant reaching down to get something from a bottom shelf...
Darren Samat, defending Clarke said: “Mr Clarke has shown remorse and is extremely upset about his assault on Mr Asok.
“It clearly was a serious offence with catastrophic long lasting effects.
“It was clear his paranoia was based in reality but he gave slightly too much prominence to being fearful about something he perceived that would try to kill him.
“In the past he has sought perceived solace in the authority’s arms and couldn’t bear the thought of being on his own...
“He is a very frightened man, he does not socialise in prison, he stays in solitary confinement in fear that if he leaves his cell another prisoner will ‘get him’ as he is at the hands of his paranoia.
“Although he has a history of offending he does not show a pattern of violent offences and he has become a man who is institutionalised and seeks solace from authorities to prevent his paranoia.”
Sentencing the 64-year-old man, Judge Cutts said: “You went into that hardware shop to buy the knife - you had no intention of cooking with it - and went to the shop where the 25-year-old man had been alone..
“You said you heard voices in you head but psychiatric tests concluded that these were not connected to any mental health illness and that your paranoia was general to your lifestyle and fear that your life was in danger if you were made homeless again.
“You are wholly culpable for what you did and you will be imprisoned for the savage attack on a member of the public....
“I am sentencing you to 15 years in prison with a five year extension."
****************************************************************
So, who is insane here, for delusion and insanity there surely is:
1. Is it the defendant?
2. Is it the judge, who believes that paranoia is a lifestyle choice?
3. Is it some anonymous psychiatrist who evidently believes that there is a test to show that people have absolute control and authority over their distressing voices?
4. Is it the law, which determines that anyone who performs a premeditated act is ipso facto not insane or mentally ill?
5. Or finally, it is me that is insane for questioning cases like these? In my opinion, such cases show total lack of common sense, gross ignorance of the whole field of psychiatry, profound lack of humanity and compassion, and reversion to pre-Enlightenment values. However, it seems that no one else is at all disturbed by the treatment of the mentally ill by the criminal justice system, that my views are so removed from those of society in general, that is must be me that is by definition deluded and insane.
Hello Anthony,
A/ I think the judge used the law for the benefit of his self and the societal expectation. I think he himself may some help if he thinks paranoia is a life style. Voices could be internal self-speak but these are not usually related to paranoid delusional systems.
The question was: "Can someone commit a crime because of their schizophrenia? The answer to that is simple and is an obvious answer, I believe, "Yes."
But the second question, whether the individual should stand trial and be subject to punishment for the crime is a second issue and a lot more complicated.
The ideal solution to the dilemma would be early detection of the criminally insane before they kill another human being. But, unfortunately, those with the most serious issues, at least in my limited experience, are subject to a number of unfortunate circumstances (the sheer weight of dealing with a family member with these issues can deplete financial resources, drive neighbors and friends away. Support systems depleted, the individual finally has the opportunity to act on violent impulses or delusions). There are piecemeal approaches--but, I do believe in a grassroots, ground up approach to solutions (would work best in my community; others may differ).
In a strange and tragic twist, I reread the post regarding the priest's failed attempts to assist an individual with schizophrenia in fully realizing that he was being executed. With such a harsh reality coming, why would one want the individual to fully comprehend his own demise under such a circumstance?
There is a rather scary photo on the front page of today's Guardian of the face of the man of Somali origin charged with attempted murder by stabbing a stranger at a tube station saying "this is for Syria". One would have thought that the most likely a priori cause of this bizarre incident was mental illness, yet I can find no mention or hint of this possibility in The Guardian. Surely, if the person did in fact have schizophrenia, it is quite outrageous and unethical to plaster his photo all over the papers?
The front page of The DailyTelegraph has an even larger photo of the terror suspect, who was remanded in custody, but it did at least give the relevant context:
*******************************************************************************
The victm requested anonymity, which has been respected (so far!), so why does an obviously ill person not also have anonymity?
Since the media, mental health professionals and charities, and, possibly, the police, are in total denial over the problem of untreated schizophrenics in the community, perhaps we ought to deport the large numbers of schizophrenic immigrants back to their country of origin, where, as the International WHO studies some years ago suggested, long term outcomes for schizophrenia are better.
Here is a perfect illustration of the points I made yesterday, from The Times Editorial, long recognised as an opinion leader in the UK, Dec 8th, 2015:
"The motivation of someone capable of such an attack is always dark and complex. Just because he was shouting slogans about Syria does not mean that politics was the only source of anger in his twisted thinking. It is even more of a leap to suppose that his religion can explain his viciousness".
No mention at all that he might be mentally ill, while the simple idea that someone could kill as a result of psychotic delusions is not on the radar of the leader writer. This is despite the article on p 5 'Tube attacker had mental health issues'. However, despite reporting a definite change of behavior and mental state after he began smoking cannabis, this article does not go beyond mental health problems, a label which could apply to most of the population at some time in their lives. Unlike The Telegraph (see last response above), no mention of his prior diagnosis of paranoia; 3 months in mental hospital; hallucinations; thought disorder; family asking to have him sectioned.
Also on p 5 is an article on someone who admitted sending malicious messages to an MP. "Wallace had a history of mental health problems and had not taken his medication the night he sent his message. He said: "Mr Wallace is a Muslim convert."
So there we have it in black and white in The Times -- someone who commits a nasty crime is by definition vicious, and by strong implication, schizophrenics are evil, and should be viewed and punished in the same way as non-psychotic criminals.
Incidentally, the tube attacker may be yet another example of terrorism after cannabis use (see original assassins, and long list compiled by Peter Hitchens).
1-In this conversation, we (myself included) are using the term schizophrenia loosely (!...not only schizophrenics are capable of loosening of associations); speaking for myself, please replace schizophrenic with "psychosis of unknown etiology"; why? First, and I thank Karl Jaspers for what I am about to paraphrase, while the term schizophrenia is of heuristic value, no two persons with "schizophrenia" are the same. Jaspers writes about "ideal types" and about how "schizophrenia" and "manic-depressive illness" are helpful for classification and some kinds of research, that as clinicians we need to tread lightly given that, like snowflakes (my paraphrasing of Jaspers), no two "persons with schizophrenia" are the same. Second, what Kraepelin and the neo-Kraepelinians believed to be clear boundaries between "dementia praecox" and "manic-depressive illness" would become more distinct, in fact the boundaries are fuzzy, so much so that in the USA the NIMH will not fund studies if only DSM5/ICD10 criteria are used, but rather are encouraging use of RDoCs and "endophenotypes."
2-A totally different conversation is going on re: the death penalty, which I am opposed to for all the reasons mentioned above (e.g., "they" don't always get it right), but also because, while I think there are egregious crimes that might make me wish to murder the perpetrator, I think it is dangerous to give any state the right to take a life. And I also find the argument that the death penalty is justified due to its being a "deterrent" to other potential criminals hypocritical: in my opinion, a state taking the position that it can murder people in order to deter others from murdering people illogical.
The worst mass killer in American history is being vilified on all sides as a terrorist, racist, homophobe, etc, in other words as intrinsically evil. As The Times (London) headline put it (June 14 p6):
"Cool, calm murderer was fuelled by hatred
"His former wife described him as a violent, bipolar man...The elder Mr Mateen condemned his son's actions calling them "an act of terror.."
***************************************************************************
Whilst he indeed committed an act of terror, it does not follow he was a terrorist or indeed was evil. There is virtually universal denial that psychosis may be a sufficient reason in some cases for such evil deeds.
Incidentally, when I first put up this question, I did not think bipolar disorder was such a forensic problem, so it is of interest that this seemed to be the case here. However, when I checked reports on US Death Row inmates, whilst there was indeed a large excess of schizophrenia, there was an even greater excess of bipolar disorder. Of course it suits psychiatrists and psychotic persons (though not their families) to deny the link between violence and psychosis, but the inevitable result is that prisons have now usurped the former role of mental asylums in detaining those mentally ill who are a danger to themselves and to society. You also have the grotesque but unnoticed farce of the supposedly civilised US legal system killing psychotics for deeds they would not have committed had they not been mentally ill. Psychotics have a reason or excuse for acting irrationally, society doesn't.
Here is an example of someone whose illness was surely relevant to his crime, yet no account was taken of this:
"Ranting racist who spat in girl's face...
He shouted or said 'white people shouldn't breed'...was admitted to hospital last summer with schizophrenia, was sentenced to eight month' jail"...
London Metro Feb 22 2017 p7
While not everybody thinks the recent rush to executions in Arkansas is a mark of a civilised society, even the opponents of capital punishment make little of the fact that it is considered lawful to kill a paranoid schizophrenic. If these two persons below are thought to be morally competent, what does it say of the judgement of those who deny the relevance of the reduced mental capacity of these two offenders?
"On death row for 26 years, Ward was originally convicted of strangling an 18-year-old in the bathroom of a Little Rock convenience store and would have been the first one to be injected with the lethal drugs on Monday at 7 p.m. Don Davis, who is believed to have an IQ of 70, is now the only one to be put to death on Monday. Ward's lawyer filed a challenge last month that said his client was not mentally competent enough to be executed.
For more coverage of this story, visit NBCNews.com/ArkansasExecutions
"Mr. Ward's severe and life long schizophrenia and delusions, such as seeing demon dogs at the foot of his bed, have left him incompetent for execution under the constitutional standard," his lawyer Scott Braden said in a statement released Friday. "He has no rational understanding of the punishment he is slated to suffer or the reason why he is to suffer it."
Though Ward may not be executed Monday, as scheduled, his sentence hasn't been overturned"
"Forensic Sci. 2016 Jan;61(1):284-7. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12876. Epub 2015 Jul 29.
Severe Mental Illness, Somatic Delusions, and Attempted Mass Murder.
Sarteschi CM...
Abstract
A case of an attempted mass shooting at a large psychiatric hospital in the United States by a 30-year-old male with severe mental illness, somatic delusions, and exceptional access to healthcare professionals is reported. Six persons were shot, one died at the scene, and the shooter was then killed by the police. Data were gathered from court documents and media accounts. An analysis of the shooter's psychiatric history, his interactions with healthcare professionals, and communications prior to the shooting suggest a rare form of mass murder, a random attack by a documented psychotic and delusional individual suffering with somatic delusions. Despite his being psychotic, the killer planned the attack and made a direct threat 1 month prior to the shootings. This case highlights problems with the healthcare system, indicating that it might be ill equipped to appropriately deal with severe mental illness."
Comment
Whilst still at High School he co-authored two papers in top journals (Exp Neur, Arch Gen Psych). He also asked to be shot. "Suicide by Cop" seems to be unknown in the UK and in the terrorism literature.
This case clearly shows that psychotic persons can premeditate homicide (= murder). Courts and Juries, however, assume that intent excludes psychosis, that the mentally ill cannot plan ahead, therefore that the person is shamming or the psychiatrists incompetent, in which case the offenders can be executed along with everyone else.
Another example how a psychotic person can plan and organise homicide, so, unlike most cases convicted of murder, this one here was premeditated, with intent, and hence murder by definition. Specialist psychiatric treatment, rather than execution as in the USA, is obviously called for.
"In a ruling reached last month but only made public Thursday, the Queensland Mental Health Court found she could not be held criminally responsible as she had suffered a psychotic episode from an undiagnosed mental condition.
"At the time of the killing, Mrs Thaiday was suffering from a mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia, and that she had no capacity to know what she was doing was wrong," said the court findings of her psychiatrist.
"In fact, to her way of thinking at that time, what she was doing was the best thing she could do for her children; she was trying to save them."
Under Queensland state law if a person is found to be of unsound mind at the time of an offence, criminal proceedings against them are discontinued and they are considered unfit to stand trial.
Thaiday, 40, is being held in a high-security mental health institute and it is unclear if she will ever be released.
Court records revealed her condition had been getting worse in the lead up to the killings, to the point where she believed there were evil spirits in her home.
"I am the chosen one. I have the power to kill people and to curse people. You hurt my kids, I hurt them first. You stab my kids, I stab them first. If you kill them, I will kill them," she is alleged to have been ranting in the street on the night of the murder."
Straitstimes.com May 4 2017
Thought for the Day on BBC R4 yesterday moralised about serial killer Ian Brady who has just died. The speaker concluded that IB went beyond sin, he was evil. No mention that IB had been diagnosed with schizophrenia (a very courageous diagnosis for psychiatrists to make in his case). So, whilst we are willing to accept that schizophrenia can lead to people committing some crimes they would not otherwise commit, once the crimes (in rare cases) become too dreadful, they are no longer mentally ill but pure evil. This matters, because in the USA no one thinks twice about executing psychotics whose illness is totally relevant to their offence. This is worse than burning witches -- we have no excuses.
I proposed (JAAPL 1998) that psychotic homicides were far more likely to be intended, ie true murder, than homicides by nonpsychotics. This point has not been grasped by the public, juries or the legal system, where the stereotype is that the mentally ill are basically incompetent and cannot plan anything serious. So the USA still executes psychotics on the grounds that they knew what they were doing, so could not be psychotic, or are simply evil (presumably as a result of their mental illness). Here is yet another example of how dangerous and unrecognized paranoid schizophrenia can be, a 44y old female mass murderer (J Forensic Sci 2011,56:813). This also independently confirms the paradox I had earlier reported:
"Two paradoxes have also emerged from these studies: the psychotic mass murderer usually has a greater lethality ... than the nonpsychotic mass murderer; and despite the delusional nature of such individuals, their killing behavior remains quite organized, methodical, and without conscious emotions. Mass murders do not 'snap'"
Here are extracts from a long and detailed report on the Lindt Inquest from the NSW government. It makes the same depressing argument as above that because someone is organised they cannot be psychotic. This seems to crucially misunderstand the subtle condition of paranoid schizophrenia, and the nature of delusions. See Section 164, which very much looks like paranoia to me. This reminds me of the time many years ago when I attended a meeting critical of the diagnoses of forms of schizophrenia used for dissidents in the Soviet Union. Halfway through the meeting, the doors were flung open and a very well known Soviet dissident stood in the doorway, loudly asking why he had not been informed of this meeting, it was all a plot against him from the security services, etc.
"Conclusion: Monis was not psychotic
185. Monis undertook the siege in a controlled,
planned and quite methodical manner marked
by deliberation and choice. He was not suffer
-ing from a diagnosable categorical psychiatric
disorder that deprived him of the capacity to
understand the nature of what he was doing."
164. From May 2010, Monis saw Dr Kristin Barrett, a
psychiatrist attached to the Canterbury Commu
-nity Mental Health Team. He had seven consul
-tations with her over 16 months. At his first few
visits, Dr Barrett thought Monis showed signs
of paranoia. He wore a cap and sunglasses and
avoided eye contact. He was guarded, and Dr Bar
-rett found it difficult to elicit information from him.
He told Dr Barrett he was being watched by various
groups in both Iran and Australia. He claimed the
surveillance had been going on for many years and
that he was even being watched in the bathroom."
Another example of the insanity and barbarity of the US legal system:
"State to Execute Morva Despite Serious Mental Illness
By Sandy Hausman • Jun 5, 2017
As Governor Terry McAuliffe prepares to leave office, he is faced with yet another plea from lawyers for a man scheduled to be executed in July. 34 year old William Morva was convicted of a double murder in Blacksburg, but doctors now say he suffered from a mental illness that compelled him to kill – a fact not shared with the jury.
Sandy Hausman has more on the case.
People who knew William Morva, growing up in Richmond and Blacksburg, say he was a great kid.
“He had a wide circle of friends when he was younger, and they describe him as this incredibly loving young man, generous defender of the underdog – the kind of guy who would run up to you and give you a hug,” says attorney Dawn Davison.
Later, she recalls, Morva showed signs of mental illness. He was convinced, for example, that he suffered from a serious intestinal disease.
“In order to treat that he has used a very odd diet over the years," Davison says. " When he was free, he would eat raw meat or nearly raw meat in large quantities, large quantities of cheese, at times trying a diet that consisted of nuts and berries and pine cones – the sorts of things that you and I think, ‘That can’t possibly help a stomach disorder.’”
He dropped out of high school, believing he was on an important mission.
“The mission has been described differently over time as either saving the world or saving certain indigenous populations in the world," his lawyer explains. "He believed that he would come upon a secret tribe or a hidden tribe in South America, and that they would recognize him as somebody who has come to save them.”
At the same time, she claims, he was convinced enemies were out to get him.
William Morva was tried and convicted of a double murder. Lawyers now say the jury wasn't told of his serious mental illness.
“He believed that the Bush administration was somehow in cahoots with the Blacksburg police department, and that they were targeting him.”...
Convinced that his prison diet would lead to death, Morva begged to see a doctor, and eventually he was taken to a local hospital...
“Jurors were told that he had a personality disorder, that he was just kind of an odd guy, that he had odd beliefs, and they were specifically told he didn’t have delusions," the attorney says. "Odd beliefs can be changed by clear evidence or rational argument, and delusions are just immutable in the face of those things.”
That’s why the center is asking Governor McAuliffe to commute Morva's sentence from death to life in prison, and to ask the Virginia Department of Corrections to begin treating him with anti-psychotic drugs."
A further example of a delusional and abysmally ignorant legal system. Are mental health professionals happy to leave unchallenged the view that because he knew what he was doing, he could not have been mentally ill?
"Reader empathized regarding Casteel's mental illness, however, he noted, that although Casteel has a mental diagnosis and believed the government was somehow out to get him, there is nothing in the reports he's received "to indicate that he was delusional in his use of deadly force or the possible outcome of what that could be."
"He knew and admitted on the witness stand that he was using a lethal weapon and if he wanted to shoot someone ... what the possible outcome could be," the judge noted. "What prompted him to shoot may have been delusional, but he certainly knew when he was shooting at various cars and people what the possible outcome could be."
Last month, Casteel was sentenced to up to 10 years for the shootings in Oakland County, Mich., as part of a plea deal. A Livingston County jury found him guilty of terrorism in January.
Victim Stacy Banks was less sympathetic about Casteel's mental illness claims, telling him that she found his claims he was paranoid, driven by demons and meant no harm to be "ridiculous." She asked for the maximum sentence, which is life in prison.
"You aimed a gun at human beings and you pulled the trigger," she said. "You meant harm and you meant to terrorize people. ... Mr. Casteel, what you are is a criminal, and you need to be separated from society."
Mich Press Argus Mar 3 2014
"She was hallucinating, chanting, without the medication she had relied on for years, complaining a demon punched her awake at night. She was on a basic regime, punishment for what was classed as bad behaviour...
Should Sarah have been in prison at all?...
'Sarah's story is not uncommon', says Lee Jasper of the campaign... 'It is about race, class, gender and the lack of resources for mental health"...
The Observer July 30 2017 p 12
Actually, what it is really about is the unwillingness on all sides to accept that psychosis, at least on occasion, can cause criminal behaviour.
"Mr Gregory has also been under psychiatric care and has been diagnosed as having a mental illness, most probably paranoid schizophrenia...The dispute between the Crown and the defence arises as to whether when Mr Gregory damaged the painting he knew what he was doing was wrong. The Crown says that he did. The defence says he didn't."
The Times Dec 19 2017 p 23
I say that he probably did know he was breaking the law, but for two barristers to be arguing over this is as unreal as any psychotic delusion. The Law is hundreds of years behind in a fundamental grasp of the essence of psychosis.
Morgan Geyser Sentenced to 40 Years of State-Mandated Psychiatric Care for 'Slender Man' Stabbing
Elizabeth Cassidy...
On Thursday, Morgan Geyser, 15, was sentenced to 40 years of state-mandated psychiatric supervision after pleading guilty to attempted first-degree intentional homicide as a part of a plea deal to avoid prison time in October. According to WBAY, Geyser will start her sentence at Winnebago Mental Health Institution, and will be eligible to switch to a less-restrictive care setting within six months depending on her progress.
In 2014, Geyser and her friend, Anissa Weier, both 12 at the time, attacked another 12-year-old girl. Geyser stabbed the girl while Weier encouraged it, according to investigators. Weier was sentenced to 25 years in a psychiatric hospital in December.
Geyser’s attorneys said she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychotic spectrum disorder, the Associated Press reported. These conditions can cause delusions and paranoid beliefs.
During the investigation, Geyser and Weier told police that they had to kill the girl in order to protect their families from Slender Man, a scary, fictional being created in 2009.
Though most people with a mental illness diagnosis, including schizophrenia, do not become violent, a lack of social support and treatment as well as substance abuse can increase someone with schizophrenia’s chances of becoming aggressive."
themighty.com Feb 1 2018
Comment
1. Judging by this report, this was clearly murder (ie planned homicide). See my publication showing that homicide is far more likely to be murder if the perpetrator is mentally ill.
2. Though this is a mental illness website, some of the popular comments to this article are beyond belief, eg
"Lock the sicko up forever... There is no cure for that monster."
3. I wonder how this case would have been dealt with in the UK, where there is a mandatory life sentence for murder. From top to bottom, people think that a mentally ill person cannot plan a murder, even when this is obviously a direct result of their illness and distorted thinking.
Dominic Gilbert...PUBLISHED: 19:29 01 March 2018 | UPDATED: 19:45 01 March 2018 [edp24.co.uk]
Alexander Palmer from Cringleford was found guilty on Wednesday of killing dog walker Peter Wrighton in woodlands near East Harling last summer...
After an eight day trial, a jury at Nottingham Crown Court took less than an hour to convict the 24-year old from Cringleford over the knife attack at East Harling last summer...
The trial heard that before the killing, Palmer had made notes referring to voices in his head and killing people with knives.
The hallucinations and voices in his head, which Palmer dubbed Alex or Little Alex, began after Palmer was attacked by fellow soldiers on a night out in Plymouth in 2013.
He sustained serious head injuries and quit the army in 2015...
At RAF Marham, Palmer had told mental health professionals the voice in his head told him to kill people by attacking the throat and he seemed to have a particular grudge against dog walkers.
Prosecution barrister Stephen Spence told the court aggravating features included “a significant degree of planning” and the fact Mr Wrighton was “particularly vulnerable because of his age”.
“He was targeted as a relatively frail elderly man,” he said.
In mitigation, David Spens QC said Palmer was clearly “suffering a mental disorder at the time”
“There is plenty of evidence he was psychotic,” he told the court.
“There is a history of it. He is in Rampton [secure hospital] at the moment prescribed anti psychotic medication. His full diagnosis is yet to be undertaken.
“At the time of the killing he was not taking anti psychotic medication. The side effects were deeply unpleasant and persistent.
“But for the assault on him by a fellow trainee commando back in March 2013, which would appear to have precipitated the onset of his mental disorder, you may think this offence might not have been contemplated.
“There isn’t any evidence of any aggressive conduct of this kind previously. He was of positive good character.
“He managed to qualify at a young age as a commando gunner in the artillery. Very few candidates pass that course each year and he was one of 20 people that year who managed to qualify.
“That is quite an achievement and shows he had a lot of potential which now won’t be realised.”
Jailing Palmer for life, The Honourable Mr Justice Goose called him a “highly dangerous man”.
“You had stopped taking your medication, knowing that it caused an increase in your hallucinations,” he said.
“You planned this murder having bought the knife and travelled to the scene to pick on a member of the public who was walking his dogs.
“You had thought where to go, how you would carry it out and how you would leave the scene, disposing of the evidence to connect you with the attack.
“This was a callous and planned killing.”
Comment A perfect example here of the flawed argument that a well-planned murder excludes psychosis. As I showed sometime ago, the better a homicide is planned, the more likely psychosis is. It is surely obvious that the voices provide a simple and logical explanation for what otherwise was a totally inexplicable crime. The legal system is suffering a collective psychosis, mental health advocates are in denial. Meanwhile, an obviously mentally ill person through no fault of his own is sentenced to life in prison. Or do we believe he should simply have pulled himself together? In the future we will look back in disbelief at our treatment of the criminally insane.
Jenna Russell and Laura Crimaldi GLOBE STAFF MARCH 03, 2018
WINCHESTER — Farrow Street feels like a place preserved from another time. The well-kept houses and small yards along its three-block length seem neither rich nor poor. Laughing children run back and forth among backyards, between old trees that extend branches as though to offer protection.
The families on this street all know and look out for one another...
Maybe because of that uncommon congeniality, the sight of one of the neighborhood boys one Saturday about four years ago, standing alone on a footbridge over the rush of nearby Horn Pond Brook by a narrow fringe of woods, was all the more alarming. The boy was Jeffrey Yao, one of two sons of a family from China who lived on Farrow Street. The family was reserved but kind-hearted and well-liked...
On that day, though, Jeff Yao, then in his late teens, seemed in an inexplicable fury, and was smashing clay pots against the ground, one after another, shattering them. No one then could yet foresee that this was an early sign of dark trouble, or that Yao would talk of hearing voices or that, some four years later, he would allegedly ride his bicycle downtown to the public library, carrying a 10-inch hunting knife, sneak up behind an old high school classmate, Deane Kenny Stryker, and stab her more than 20 times, killing her."
Comment
An excellent report of an appalling case. This happened not because people did not notice, or did not care, but because of the fundamental philosophical tenet that the rights of the individual override absolutely those of society, his victim, her family, his family, etc. Surely a case for compulsory sectioning and treatment, or at least removal to a place of safety. Ironically, the human rights lobby ignore the fact that this would have almost certainly helped Yao himself in the long run, and prevented this murder. Instead, as has happened with many criminally insane psychotics in the USA, they get executed or sent to prison for life. It is unconscionable to let untreated psychotics roam the streets and refuse offered shelter on cold nights. In the worst cases, we have reductio ad tragediam
Frances Perraudin North of England reporter [The Guardian]...
Mon 5 Mar 2018 12.14 GMT Last modified on Mon 5 Mar 2018 13.28 GM
A 19-year-old man who said he “liked killing” has been jailed for at least 24-and-a-half years for the murder of 16-year-old Leonne Weeks. Shea Peter Heeley lured Leonne to a secluded spot in Dinnington, near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, in January last year and stabbed her 28 times “for no reason at all”, a judge was told.
Sheffield crown court heard that he said after his arrest he had always known he would kill someone, and he later told staff in a secure mental hospital: “I like that I have done it, I just do. I like killing.” Heeley, of Dinnington, admitted murder last month. Before his plea, a 50-page psychiatric report concluded that he had no diagnosable psychiatric disorders, but that he might have an emerging personality disorder.
The judge, Paul Watson QC, said Heeley had befriended Leonne, who lived near him, and they had been at a party together two days before her murder. On 15 January 2017 he executed the “pre-planned, brutal and pitiless killing of an innocent young girl who had her whole life before her”, he said.
“He said he had deliberately selected that place to meet her as it was secluded and he intended to harm her,” he told the court. “He said he heard voices telling him to kill her and he had demons inside him.” The defence told the court Heeley had told staff at Rampton secure hospital that he had killed Weeks, saying: “I’ll go to prison or hospital, but probably prison. If that’s what it takes to stop me killing people, that’s where I need to go.”..
Speaking outside court, DCI Martin Tate said he did not think it would ever be understood why Heeley had committed the crime. “He’s planned murder for some time. He’s researched on the internet how to commit murder, how to get away with destroying forensic evidence,” he said.
“But I don’t think we’ll ever really understand why he is so dangerous, what he is thinking and why anyone would seek to do this.”
Comments
Whilst I have been extremely critical of the US Legal System which sees no problem in executing schizophrenics, here is an example of an excellent and constructive article from a US newspaper. I do not recall any UK paper raising the issue of crime and schizophrenia (see my post 1 week ago on the Yao case).
"By Felice J. Freyer and Mark Arsenault GLOBE STAFF MARCH 11, 2018
When a young man well-known to police and neighbors for bizarre and scary behavior suddenly stabbed a former schoolmate to death in Winchester last month, many people asked why someone so seemingly dangerous was allowed to roam freely.
It is a natural question. Also one that, despite the horrific tragedy, has no easy answer.
One reason to pause: So much is still unknown about the case of Jeffrey Yao...
It’s not now known what actions were taken after the five occasions between March 2013 and last September when police took him to Winchester Hospital. He may well have spent substantial time off the streets and in treatment. Officials so far haven’t said...
The most dangerous people are those who have paranoid hallucinations in which they are commanded to take actions, especially if they also abuse drugs, Zeizel said. Patients never suddenly “snap,” he said, but their heightening paranoia may not always be evident to those around them."
"Nanny Faces Tough Insanity Test: Did She Know Killing Was Wrong?
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. and JAN RANSOM MARCH 27, 2018 [NY Times]
... the jury has begun wrestling with one of the most controversial, misunderstood and hard-to-grasp concepts in criminal law: the insanity defense.
The outcome of the trial will depend largely on how the jury interprets evidence now being presented about Yoselyn Ortega’s mental health and her state of mind when she used a kitchen knife to slay 2-year-old Leo Krim and his 6-year-old sister, Lucia, in October 2012.
Ms. Ortega’s lawyer, Valerie Van Leer-Greenberg, said in her opening statement that insanity was the only possible explanation for the grisly killings. “I will show that the lack of motive in this case is the hallmark of a mentally ill defender,” she said.
But if history is a guide, she faces an uphill battle persuading the jury. In New York, defendants must prove not just that they have a mental illness, but that the illness prevented them from understanding the consequences of their actions or that what they did was wrong.
“The problem is, being crazy isn’t enough,” said one defense lawyer, Martin Goldberg. “You have to show your client, as a result of a mental disease, lacked the ability to know right and wrong.”..
The standard is so difficult to meet that few defendants who present an insanity defense win at trial, even when they have long, documented histories of psychosis. Only six people were found at trial to be not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect between 2007 and 2016, out of 5,111 murder cases, according to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services. The state does not track how often the defense is raised.
Prosecutors typically argue that the insanity claim is a ruse invented after the crime and seize on any evidence of a cover-up, or that the killing was planned, to argue the defendant knew it was wrong.
“Prosecutors are very adept at showing that the defendant engaged in some rational behavior, that they planned the attack in some way, or they did things to escape detection or made up a story,” said Peter L. Arenella, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who studies insanity cases. “This shows that even if they were mentally ill, they still understood what was wrong.”
Defense lawyers typically focus on the defendant’s history of mental illness, stressing his irrational worldview and the inexplicable nature of the crime.
In the end, the trials become battles between mental health experts hired by both sides, who, using the same set of facts, come to opposite conclusions about the defendant’s capacity to understand his acts at the moment of the crime.
The first salvo came on Tuesday, when a psychiatrist for the defense, Dr. Karen Rosenbaum, testified that Ms. Ortega told her in a series of interviews that the devil was “possessing her more and more” in the months before the killings. She said Ms. Ortega also heard voices that “told her to kill people, to kill herself and, eventually, to kill the children.”
As a rule, jurors tend to be skeptical of insanity claims like Ms. Ortega’s, because they worry about being duped and releasing a dangerous person into the world, experts on the defense say...
Frederick L. Sosinsky, a Manhattan defense lawyer who has argued insanity in two murder cases, said jurors often had a preconceived notion of what a person experiencing psychotic episodes looks like, expecting him to be “incoherent, mumbling, almost catatonic.”
“It doesn’t look anything like that,’ he said. “You can’t see what’s going on in the mind.” Often, he said, the most important factor for jurors is how the defendant strikes them in the first videotaped police interrogation.
In Ms. Ortega’s case, even before the start of trial, potential jurors struggled with the idea of having to determine her state of mind at the time of the murders. One prospective juror said she could not understand why Ms. Ortega “would try to kill herself without knowing she did something wrong.”
Another said: “I couldn’t decide someone’s sanity or not. How could you ask me?”...
Once in a while the defense is persuasive. In 2015, a Manhattan jury determined that Alejandro Morales, who had been repeatedly diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not criminally responsible for the 2010 fatal stabbing of a 9-year-old boy inside of his mother’s Upper West Side apartment.
Mr. Morales had delusions that he was being chased by giant rats and gang members in the days before the murder. Jurors agreed he lacked the capacity to know that killing the boy was wrong, even though, as prosecutors pointed out, he fled the apartment, hid the knife and lied to the police. He was later committed to a secure psychiatric hospital.
Jurors more often opt to convict in cases with defendants with serious mental illnesses. David Tarloff was a schizophrenic man from Queens who suffered from delusions about communicating with God and had been committed to a mental hospital numerous times. He was found guilty in 2013 of killing Kathryn Faughey, a Manhattan psychologist, with a mallet and a knife during a robbery attempt. He had told doctors the Lord had sanctioned the robbery...
And in 2016 a Bronx jury convicted Bashid McLean, who fatally stabbed, beheaded and dismembered his mother before snapping a selfie with her head. He had attempted suicide several times and was on medication for depression and schizophrenia.
Mr. McLean’s lawyer, Lynn Calvacca, said her client was clearly mentally ill, but the prosecution focused on evidence that he covered up the crime, hiding his mother’s remains and telling police he did not know where she was. The jury determined Mr. McLean knew he was committing an immoral act, even if the brutality of the murder reflected a diseased mind, she said.
“There is no way a reasonable person could say that what this guy did was sane,” Ms. Calvacca said. “He cut off his mother’s head and took a selfie with it.”
Jurors often have trouble finding a person “not responsible,” for a horrific act he admits committing, defense lawyers said. Many jurors also balk at sending a defendant to a mental hospital rather than prison, fearing he might eventually be released on a doctor’s recommendation.
In practice, judges typically send such defendants to one of the state’s two secure psychiatric hospitals, where they are ordered to be held until doctors deem them no longer to be dangerous, and a judge agrees. Many judges and mental health professionals are loath to free a known killer, and the majority spend more time locked up than they would have served had they pleaded guilty to manslaughter or second-degree murder.
“It’s very, very tough to get out,” said Charles P. Ewing, a forensic psychologist and law professor. “It rarely happens. They don’t want the responsibility of releasing someone who goes out and commits another offense.”...
The modern insanity defense has long been polemical, and the legal standards vary from state to state. Kansas, Montana, Idaho and Utah have abolished the defense altogether. Other states have adopted a “guilty but mentally ill” verdict. But most states, among them New York, use a variation of the legal test derived from the 1843 case of Daniel M’Naghten, an English lunatic who killed a secretary to Prime Minister Robert Peel.
In the United States. the insanity defense sparked a national uproar after a jury acquitted John Hinckley Jr. in the 1981 shooting of President Ronald Reagan. In response, Congress in 1984 shifted the burden of proving insanity to the defense in federal cases, and a majority of states, including New York, followed suit, making it much harder for defendants to prevail...
But Ms. Ortega’s lawyer, Ms. Van Leer-Greenberg, contends Ms. Ortega has suffered from depression, psychotic thinking and hallucinations since her teens, and never received treatment until after her arrest.
Two of Ms. Ortega’s sisters have described in court how she went into deep depression twice, the first time in 1978 after another sister died unexpectedly and again in 2008 after a cousin shot himself on the balcony of her family home. She became a paranoid shut-in for months, hiding under the bed whenever a dog barked, they said.
Ms. Ortega was unraveling in the month before the murders, the sisters, Miladys Garcia and Delci Ortega, testified. Three days before the killings, she woke up in the middle of the night and began throwing pots and pans around the kitchen, but later had no recollection of it, Delci Ortega said.
In Tuesday’s testimony, Dr. Rosenbaum said Ms. Ortega would bang on pots and pans to dispel her hallucinations about the devil possessing her. She never told the Krims of her visions or of the voices telling her to hurt people, the doctor said, because she feared being fired and “didn’t want people to know she is crazy.”
“She struggled — she didn’t want to carry out the plans,” Dr. Rosenbaum said. She added Ms. Ortega had explained “she has no strength when the devil is trying to take her.”
Comment
Here is a perfect example of the insanity of the current legal system, not just in the USA. It is as if two centuries of psychiatry have had absolutely no influence on public opinion and popular prejudice. Mental health professionals bear some responsibility for failing to address these misconceptions. I would also query the ethics of prosecuting lawyers peddling views of mental illness they surely know are mistaken.
The London Metro Ap 20 2018 contains a half page article on this case. There is no mention of YO's long history of paranoid psychosis, nor that she was hearing command voices. The motive offered in this article was "jealous hatred of Mrs Krim". This actually makes even less sense than the medieval explanation of devil possession.
"The dark possible motive of the Toronto van attacker
April 25, 2018 6.30pm BST [The Conversation]
Michael Arntfield
Associate Professor of Criminology & English Literature, Western University...
Like other Canadians, I was horrified upon learning of a van attack along Toronto’s famed Yonge Street this week. Struggling to make sense of it, my first question was: “Why?”
As it turns out, the attack was possibly a disturbing reprise of a similar massacre, targeting mostly women and perceptively “sexually active” men in the California community of Isla Vista in May 2014...
It’s what is often called “suicide by cop” and it’s a preferred ending among some of the odious and cowardly offenders out there, including lone-wolf terrorists.
Focusing on the motive
But Lam’s remarkable restraint has instead allowed the media to focus on the real subtext of this horrific rampage — the motive no one saw coming, but one with a series of disturbing antecedents that we all need to pay attention to...
“incel” requires a conversation because it represents only the latest online movement catering to the disordered and the disaffected...
The devotees to this movement include those suffering from what is known as schizoid personality disorder. The biographical details emerging about the Toronto van attack suspect may fit some symptoms of this disorder.
While it sounds like schizophrenia, it’s not. In fact, unlike schizophrenia, schizoids know exactly what they’re doing. It might be best described as the closest thing to clinical misanthropy — a visceral hatred of people — as you can get.
It’s also a personality disorder, not an illness per se; in fact, it’s very rare in clinical settings, or among populations suffering from mental illness."
************
Comment
" PUBLISHED MAY 14, 2018, 6:17 PM SGT UPDATED 7 HOURS AGO
NEW YORK (AFP) - [The Globe]
A former New York nanny was sentenced to life behind bars on Monday (May 14) for murdering two young children in her care five years ago in a case that tormented parents worldwide...
A New York jury found her guilty last month on two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder.
On Monday, Judge Gregory Carro sentenced Ortega to the maximum penalty under the law - life in a state prison without the possibility of parole.
The prosecution said Ortega deliberately planned the murders and was motivated by financial problems and resentment of her wealthy employers.
"Leo and Lulu will never live the lives that laid ahead of them, and now their remorseless killer will live the rest of her life in prison," Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said.
Moments earlier, Ortega sobbed as she expressed remorse for the first time for the killings, asking for forgiveness from God and the children's parents but standing by her defense that she "did not feel well."
NYC nanny sentenced to life for murdering 2 children
"I'm very sorry, but I hope that no one goes through what I have gone through," she said..
‘You’re evil!’: Mother rages at nanny during US murder trial
"I ask for a great deal of forgiveness - to God, to Marina, to Kevin," she said, wearing an oatmeal top and her dark hair scraped back into a pony tail.
Her lawyer said she suffers from psychosis, depression and heard voices telling her to kill the children.
"My client is severely ill, she is psychotic," Valerie Van Leer-Greenberg said, appealing for her to be placed in protective custody...
Ortega then took the knife to her own throat in an apparent suicide attempt..."
Comment
Here we have a perfect example of the psychotic and psychopathic thinking of the criminal justice system. Note the logical fallacies:
These cases are tragic and difficult to read about. Can someone with psychiatric disturbance commit a crime? I believe the answer is yes. Should they be prosecuted as a result? That part of the answer is more complex. Other contributors to this post have explored the issues far better than I could and demonstrate that the notion of prosecution for crimes committed is much more difficult. Regarding the priest who could not help a mentally ill man grasp the reality of his execution, I wonder what would be served by having him face this reality? Is the notion of "hearing voices" always to be dismissed as a sign of mental instability? As we become more sophisticated communicators, we do "think" in words according to researchers who study language. If we think in words, do we hear the words audibly (inner voice) or visually? If one states that he or she "likes killing," from where does that value derive? See a fairly recent article on the brain's conversation with itself. Article The Brain’s Conversation with Itself: Neural Substrates of D...
"Is the notion of "hearing voices" always to be dismissed as a sign of mental instability?"
No, many normal people hear voices. The problem arises when voices are persistent and insistent, commanding the person to kill someone, and cannot be resisted. If we say someone should be punished for obeying the voices, this is equivalent to saying psychosis is a life choice, and that schizophrenics should simply pull themselves together and ignore their voices.
Here is a clear example of where the mental state of a killer is regarded as irrelevant. The family want him punished for the evil deed, regardless of his mental state or culpability. 'Suicide by Cop' is grossly underdiagnosed.
"Attorney Sagiv Ozeri of the State Prosecutor’s Office said that according to expert opinions submitted by the district psychiatrist and a psychiatrist for the defense, Tamimi is mentally ill and has been in treatment for years.
“It’s important to clarify that the evidentiary material does not indicate that he’s a terrorist,” said Ozeri. “This was not a hostile act of terror with a nationalist element. It was a terrible murder that was committed by a mentally ill person. That’s the truth, and the truth must be told.”
Tamimi stabbed Bladon, a 21-year-old exchange student at the Hebrew University, seven times while she was traveling on the light-rail train in Jerusalem before other passengers subdued him.
Ozeri said that Bladon’s family agreed to the plea bargain in light of the complexities of the case, but believed that the punishment was incommensurate with the seriousness of his crime.
The lawyer also noted that the Palestinian's motive was still not clear but likely stemmed from an argument he had with his sons, who refused to put him up in their homes and wanted him hospitalized again in the psychiatric institution that had released him a day earlier.
“The accused was furious," said Ozeri, "which led him to stab someone to death so that he himself would be shot and killed. He isn’t a shahid [holy martyr]. The act was not perpetrated for nationalistic reasons. He wanted to end his life and, unfortunately, chose the evil path of taking Hannah’s life.”
Haaretz Jan 14 2019
You asked that someone speak up on behalf of the stricken offender, that duty should be the responsibility of the prosecution psychiatrist/defence psychiatrist.
It should be clear cut psychiatric intervention inevitably accepts guilt as charged if that point is reached regarding a capital offence the consequences too are inevitable.
At least in Indonesia.