|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/12/12/montreal-guy-turcotte-mental-review.html?cmp=rss
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Turcotte released from Philippe Pinel Institute/7687830/story.html
In 2009, this man stabbed his two children. aged 3 and 5, to death. In 2011 a judge and jury found him not guilty under the case of his mental state at the time of the murder.
Now, after only 18 months in an institution, he has been deemed mentally fit and is to be released.
My mind cannot begin to comprehend how it is possible this man does not serve major prison time, spends 18 months in the comfort of an institution, and is now released after only a year and half - for brutally murdering his toddlers. It almost makes me physically sick.
I am not one to be that politically active. But today, I took the 5 minutes to write a letter to my MP about this case. On a moral level, this injustice is unacceptable. On the thought how this represents our country, our justice system, it is absolutely unacceptable. He has set the precedent that you can argue away the taking of someone's life based on your feelings at the time. Yes, he was sad about the separation with the mother. He murdered the children to 'save them the pain of the separation'. And the courts accepted this argument and offered him psychological support, rather than making him pay for the crime.
If you are canadian, I will urge you to write to your MP. The Crown will be appealing the decision, but I do not know how far that will go. In any case, I felt like I couldn't just sit here and not make my voice heard about this. I hope you will do the same, for the victims, and for justice.
 
|
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life?
|
well he might be ok again. If he really was in some kind of blackout while he did it he'll suffer enough now that he can realize what he did.
ofcourse he might have simulated the craziness. But really how do you want to judge that?
|
On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life?
what mental defect would that be that allowed me to be practicing doctor up until the fact, and let alone for me to be supposedly cured after a years worth of help?
|
On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life?
So if you get drunk then run over a person (and kill them), you can go to AA and your Murder charges are dropped? I don't think so T.T
|
On December 13 2012 15:50 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life? So if you get drunk then run over a person (and kill them), you can go to AA and your Murder charges are dropped? I don't think so T.T
uhm I hope you see the difference between a mental illness and alcohol abuse?
|
On December 13 2012 15:53 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:50 iTzSnypah wrote:On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life? So if you get drunk then run over a person (and kill them), you can go to AA and your Murder charges are dropped? I don't think so T.T uhm I hope you see the difference between a mental illness and alcohol abuse?
I knew I should have elaborated. I'll rephrase. You're driving home drunk and you run a kid over. You didn't mean to. Therefore by Sufficiency's logic the Drunk can just go to AA and get his charges dropped.
|
On December 13 2012 15:50 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life? So if you get drunk then run over a person (and kill them), you can go to AA and your Murder charges are dropped? I don't think so T.T
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/guy-turcotte-who-stabbed-his-two-children-to-death-is-out-after-less-than-four-years/
He had admitted to stabbing his young children 46 times.
But he said he didn’t remember doing it, hadn’t wanted to do it, and had been experiencing blackouts on the night of the killings.
He said he was distraught over the breakup of his marriage. His wife had left him for a family friend who was her personal trainer.
insert alcohol into the above and you wouldn't be too far off. even better, no, he was not drunk at the time.
|
|
|
On a moral level, this injustice is unacceptable. On the thought how this represents our country, our justice system, it is absolutely unacceptable. He has set the precedent that you can argue away the taking of someone's life based on your feelings at the time.
You know what he has done, you don't want it to happen again. This is true for pretty much every single one of us. However, it is not up to you nor me to judge if he's likely to do it again. It's also not up to us to judge whether he was in a state that will not happen again in the future. I am pretty sure that no judge, no committee, no doctor will make those calls in such a case when they aren't sure about the issue. I also doubt that something like this happens on a frequent basis.
I think it speaks FOR a great justice system if such a case is possible. In theory there have to be some very few cases where something like this is the correct approach to the situation.
And the courts accepted this argument and offered him psychological support, rather than making him pay for the crime.
You want vengeance, not justice or fair treatment of a human being? If psychological support will help him get better, he deserves it - just like anyone else.
|
On December 13 2012 16:10 r.Evo wrote:
You want vengeance, not justice or fair treatment of a human being? If psychological support will help him get better, he deserves it - just like anyone else.
You could make that statement for virtually every criminal ever. Is that how justice works?
|
Although the articles don't reveal much information, provided that the psychiatrists provided the correct diagnosis, this seems pretty reasonable to me. This isn't restricted to the Canadian Justice system either. The majority of justice systems in Western Liberal Democracies are forgiving to those who commit crime due to a mental illness, and no longer carries that mental illness.
|
As a lawyer, I don't have any problem with this. A jury found him not criminally responsible because of a mental defect, and now he has recovered well enough to rejoin society. The system seems to be working just fine. It's not like it's easy to convince a jury that you aren't criminally responsible, and I really doubt his psychiatrists would let him out of the mental institution unless they were damn sure he had recovered. The real injustice would be throwing a man in prison for something he had no control over or keeping him in an institution after he gets better.
|
On December 13 2012 16:12 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 16:10 r.Evo wrote:
You want vengeance, not justice or fair treatment of a human being? If psychological support will help him get better, he deserves it - just like anyone else. You could make that statement for virtually every criminal ever. Is that how justice works?
"Justice" isn't meant to "make people pay for their crimes", deny them medical treatment and deny them a possibility for rehabilitation if said treatment was deemed successful.
|
On December 13 2012 16:12 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 16:10 r.Evo wrote:
You want vengeance, not justice or fair treatment of a human being? If psychological support will help him get better, he deserves it - just like anyone else. You could make that statement for virtually every criminal ever. Is that how justice works?
Actually this is the only situations where such a statement would work. Our justice system aims at punishing those who made a conscious decision to commit a crime, or led to committing a crime. For your previous example of drunk driving, it would in fact be a punishable crime because the culprit wilfully decided to go drinking without an alternative means of transportations, and the got behind the wheel drunk. One cannot make a conscious decision to have a mental illness. Therefore by putting that man in prison, he will not learn the lesson of "I'm sorry that I have a mental illness, I'll choose better genetics next time".
|
I'm more concerned about the omnibus bill. Although this is a messed up case it is the exception not the rule. I'm sure this will be resolved as the media has already jumped all over it.
The omnibus and the lack of any sort of debate in the federal government is much more concerning than this.
|
I like how we believe, as a society, that bad people do bad things, and in order to comfort ourselves, we believe in punishing those bad people.
With what we know of psychology and sociology, we should put a lot more investment into rehabilitation, therapy, and prevention programs than into putting people in a zoo for decades at a time.
Even if he didn't have a temporary insanity defense, no-one should go to prison for 30 years for a crime. Time doesn't teach anyone, it just keeps them "off the streets" - this is sweeping dust under the rug and just the stupidest institution in modern society.
If someone murdered my wife, I would hope that they would get rehabilitated and not put in a cage until they became either a) More insane, or b) Better at committing crimes. No-one has a family, and a job, and a good upbringing, and is chemically balanced and still commits a crime. There is something wrong with their brain, either chemically or developmentally. No-one is ever like, "I'm tired of watching the 10 o'clock news, I think I'll murder someone for a change."
Accuse me of being a dreamer, but I understand that crime happens, and that it negatively affects people. I understand that it ruins lives. But putting someone behind bars for 30 years doesn't solve the problem - the amount of money we put into keeping them locked up could be used in social programs to prevent 10 people from becoming criminals.
|
Mentally insane or not, 18 months is too short in my opinion for murdering 2 kids.
|
On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life?
I think it if impacts other peoples lives then you should be punished as if you had no mental defect. It's not like he had a mad 5 minutes and smashed up a car. Cars can be reapaired, those kids have had their lives taken!
|
I am still surprised how being insane and killing people in cold blood is not considered mentally ill in the same way this man is because it was only for a moment. If you have the potential to make insane decisions such as taking someone's life, the cause if irrelevent. It doesn't matter if you are sick or healthy, young or old - what matters is that you have the potential to take life, and that potential should never be released into society again.
I live in a country with one of the most mild justice systems where you can actually consider taking someone's life because you hate him. If they catch you and say your nuts, you can serve 3 years in a comfortable prison with tv. If they don't catch you, free revenge. I don't ever want the option to consider to be present at all. In my opinion, when someone is proven guilty of murder, with the exception of self-defense, they should just get the death penalty.
I am however glad that there is not a bunch of idiots you can influence as a laywer that 'vote' whether or not someone is guilty. The jury system is something I'm glad about that it's not here.
|
On December 13 2012 18:18 Callynn wrote:
I am however glad that there is not a bunch of idiots you can influence as a laywer that 'vote' whether or not someone is guilty. The jury system is something I'm glad about that it's not here.
The jury system is a display of democracy.
Do you not like democracy?
|
If he truly is cured, how can he live with himself?
|
On December 13 2012 18:59 Shottaz wrote:
If he truly is cured, how can he live with himself?
I imagine that was a large part of his treatment.
|
There is something wrong when a society values the well-being of an individual over the collective safety of the community.
|
On December 13 2012 16:57 Poltergeist- wrote:
Mentally insane or not, 18 months is too short in my opinion for murdering 2 kids.
He was not institutionalized for murder, he was institutionalized for being mentally ill.
The 18 months were not 'for' any crime, but for treatment.
Yes, it's very sad that this occurred, sadly most tragic events do not have the closure that we expect or want because they are far more complex that how we generally wish to admit them being. It's very easy to say you did this, you should get punished without acknowledging a whole host of issues and contentions ranging from responsibility to eye-witness accounts.
I'm sorry to hear that this person was so mentally ill that it led to the murder of his children.
Edit:
On December 13 2012 20:47 eSen1a wrote:
There is something wrong when a society values the well-being of an individual over the collective safety of the community.
I would expect that has has been deemed reasonably safe otherwise he would not have been released from hospital care. And in this instance, both the 'well-being of the individual' and the 'collective safety of the community' were covered by the judgement of the jury: the individual was institutionalized for the safety of the community and released when he no longer posed a threat (and I'm sure he's not just wandering about, he'll be receiving on-going pastoral care).
Your response sounds suspiciously like a knee jerk reaction.
|
|
|
I never understood why mentally ill people weren't held accountable for their crimes.
They are far more dangerous than sane criminals. The law should protect the innocent and not the guilty.
If you are deranged enough to seriously hurt another human being, your responsibility is to seek restraint and treatment.
If you do not and a crime does occur, you should be held fully responsible.
|
On December 13 2012 21:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I never understood why mentally ill people weren't held accountable for their crimes.
They are far more dangerous than sane criminals. The law should protect the innocent and not the guilty.
If you are deranged enough to seriously hurt another human being, your responsibility is to seek restraint and treatment.
If you do not and a crime does occur, you should be held fully responsible.
If you are 'deranged' you are probably not going to be able to identify that there is something wrong with you. The jury deemed him not guilty on the grounds of his mental health. He was held responsible in that he was institutionalized to be given treatment.
The law does not directly protect people. If those children were to be murdered by a mentally fit person the law would not have prevented it. It would simply pick up the pieces afterwards and administer justice.
In consideration of his past actions medical professionals have deemed him safe enough to return to society. I am sure their assessment of his 'threat' to society is far better than those that you which can exercise in reading a short news story.
A very tragic string of events, and like most tragedies the pain will linger on well far the event, and like all tragedies there will not be the final act of closure. It seems natural that we would want to chastise the apparent perpetrator but fortunately for most developed criminal justices systems this is not the case.
|
Nobody wants to chastise anyone. The point of the penal system is to remove dangerous individuals from society so normal people don't have their lives destroyed by a random act of senseless violence.
Chances are this guy will have another mental "slip" and he will hurt more people. This happens all the time, even in a country as small as mine. Existing laws, for some inane reason, elect to protect insane people instead of their sane victims, which makes zero sense apart from the construction of some dubious moral pedestal from where psychologists can feel good about themselves.
Have there been cases in GB as recently as last year where a "recovered" insane person murdered another random casualty? I bet they have. Here, two different ones occurred during the past five years. That's roughly a quarter of all the registered homicides. Not to mention how easy it is to escape from an asylum as opposed to a prison.
|
On December 13 2012 22:16 Kickboxer wrote:
Chances are this guy will have another mental "slip" and he will hurt more people.
What do you think makes you more qualified on this than any of the medical professionals involved in his case? Without a recommendation from them I doubt any jury would let him go free.
|
As I said, in Slovenia they've been wrong two times in the past five years. A guy relapsed and stabbed a woman, and another guy who was not deemed critically dangerous escaped a minimum security asylum, walked into a hair salon and bashed a random hairdresser's head in with a hammer.
I guess that puts a dent in their credibility?
Locking people up for protesting or dealing pot and letting psychotic murderers go because they "aren't responsible" seems like a fabulously broken system, but I guess that's just me.
|
My thoughts about the Guy Turcotte case is that it sounds suspiciously like "temporary insanity", which is bullshit.
But since I'm not a mental health professional I really can't say one way or the other. In general I trust the Canadian legal system, and recognize that the media has an obsession with generating outrage whenever someone isn't hung from the rafters when they kill someone.
Don't let it bother you, OP, if only because it's none of your damn business.
|
If you want Canadian/American Injustice watch this documentary http://www.dearzachary.com/
More on topic, this is ridiculous. He is not safe to be on the streets, you can not judge if something liek this will or will not happen again.
To the guy before me, it could be his "damn business" if hes released somewhere in proximity of the OP's location. If the man murders again it could be his friends or family.
|
he did kill his kidz to get revenge on his ex-wife.
he drank some windshield washer to try and suicide/cloud his judgement. 18 months later hes free.
Imho that cardiologist knew that windshield washer couldnt/wouldnt kill him and he displayed some great acting skills trough the whole process.
fuck that system. Im ashamed.
|
On December 13 2012 23:59 Mementoss wrote:
To the guy before me, it could be his "damn business" if hes released somewhere in proximity of the OP's location. If the man murders again it could be his friends or family.
The world would be a much simpler place if we could conclude anybody who killed anyone under any circumstances is a monster who has the capacity to randomly murder members of the populace will and no one is safe around them ever.
In the real world things aren't that simple, especially with regard to infanticide, mental illness and domestic crimes of passion. Do I think Guy Turcotte was mentally ill? No, but my opinion doesn't matter.
The schizophrenic guy from Manitoba who beheaded the carney on the bus is having escorted day trips into Selkirk because the hospital said he was well enough to. Guy Turcotte is getting completely released because the hospital said he is well enough to.
I don't want the government to change laws based on media hysteria or manipulative agitprop documentaries like Dear Zachary. There are long term consequences to short-term outrage.
|
On December 13 2012 21:26 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 16:57 Poltergeist- wrote:
Mentally insane or not, 18 months is too short in my opinion for murdering 2 kids. He was not institutionalized for murder, he was institutionalized for being mentally ill. The 18 months were not 'for' any crime, but for treatment. Yes, it's very sad that this occurred, sadly most tragic events do not have the closure that we expect or want because they are far more complex that how we generally wish to admit them being. It's very easy to say you did this, you should get punished without acknowledging a whole host of issues and contentions ranging from responsibility to eye-witness accounts. I'm sorry to hear that this person was so mentally ill that it led to the murder of his children. Edit: Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 20:47 eSen1a wrote:
There is something wrong when a society values the well-being of an individual over the collective safety of the community. I would expect that has has been deemed reasonably safe otherwise he would not have been released from hospital care. And in this instance, both the 'well-being of the individual' and the 'collective safety of the community' were covered by the judgement of the jury: the individual was institutionalized for the safety of the community and released when he no longer posed a threat (and I'm sure he's not just wandering about, he'll be receiving on-going pastoral care). Your response sounds suspiciously like a knee jerk reaction.
The issue here is the possibility he wasn't actually experiencing severe mental illness. He was a practicing doctor (cardiologist) of all things. His testimony to the court revolved solely around the fact he was distraught over the breakup with the mother of the children. And that he murdered his children to protect them from the supposed pain of the breakup. In such that he stabbed them 46 times. He tells the court that because he has trouble remember things, and possible conscious blackouts, he might be mentally unstable. And with all the experts they brought in, they convinced the jury of the fact.
This has set the precedence that anyone could argue temporary insanity at the time of a murder and be let off the hook. So that's why I ask, is that how justice works? No, I believe its a complete abuse of the system.
There are people who suffer from ptsd for their entire life and no amount of psychiatric help has helped them, and yet this person has been deemed mentally fit after only a year and half. How can you brutally murder your own children in this manner and if it were truly 'accidental', not suffer from a similar form of ptsd? There are so many things about this man's case and his sentence that just boggles the mind and why I have written this blog.
|
On December 14 2012 01:45 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 21:26 Deleuze wrote:On December 13 2012 16:57 Poltergeist- wrote:
Mentally insane or not, 18 months is too short in my opinion for murdering 2 kids. He was not institutionalized for murder, he was institutionalized for being mentally ill. The 18 months were not 'for' any crime, but for treatment. Yes, it's very sad that this occurred, sadly most tragic events do not have the closure that we expect or want because they are far more complex that how we generally wish to admit them being. It's very easy to say you did this, you should get punished without acknowledging a whole host of issues and contentions ranging from responsibility to eye-witness accounts. I'm sorry to hear that this person was so mentally ill that it led to the murder of his children. Edit: On December 13 2012 20:47 eSen1a wrote:
There is something wrong when a society values the well-being of an individual over the collective safety of the community. I would expect that has has been deemed reasonably safe otherwise he would not have been released from hospital care. And in this instance, both the 'well-being of the individual' and the 'collective safety of the community' were covered by the judgement of the jury: the individual was institutionalized for the safety of the community and released when he no longer posed a threat (and I'm sure he's not just wandering about, he'll be receiving on-going pastoral care). Your response sounds suspiciously like a knee jerk reaction. The issue here is the possibility he wasn't actually experiencing severe mental illness. He was a practicing doctor (cardiologist) of all things. His testimony to the court revolved solely around the fact he was distraught over the breakup with the mother of the children. And that he murdered his children to protect them from the supposed pain of the breakup. In such that he stabbed them 46 times. He tells the court that because he has trouble remember things, and possible conscious blackouts, he might be mentally unstable. And with all the experts they brought in, they convinced the jury of the fact. This has set the precedence that anyone could argue temporary insanity at the time of a murder and be let off the hook. So that's why I ask, is that how justice works? No, I believe its a complete abuse of the system. There are people who suffer from ptsd for their entire life and no amount of psychiatric help has helped them, and yet this person has been deemed mentally fit after only a year and half. How can you brutally murder your own children in this manner and if it were truly 'accidental', not suffer from a similar form of ptsd? There are so many things about this man's case and his sentence that just boggles the mind and why I have written this blog.
Yes of course, everything I said rests upon the assumption that the Canadian criminal justice system is fit and has not been manipulated.
I interpreted the OP as being at issue with the fact that someone who committed the described acts due to mental illness was then released from hospitalization after 18 months, not that there may be a fault with the criminal justice process in identifying mental illness. Especially considering that most posts have been concerned he will murder again.
In other words, I felt the issue was "mentally ill person released from hospital after 18 months" rather than “was this man really mentally ill or did he manipulate the system.”
In the latter case, I would still be disinclined to make a judgement without evidence of a kind beyond ‘he said she said’ hearsay, which is pretty much all the linked article consists of. The following statement for example:
"A trial depends on five things: who you are and how much money you have, what experts you hire to testify, lawyers, judge and Crown," she [Isabelle Gaston] said.
The issue she is contending with is that in his defence a psychiatrist was brought in as an expert witness. To suggest that there are crooked psychiatrists out there willing to say whatever they are told for cash is ridiculous, the role of an expert witness is to give their expert opinion on a subject, this in itself ratified by their position in their respective professional community (am fully aware cases where expert witnesses have been brought into question (cases of shaken baby syndrome in the UK is something that comes to mind) – but this is not where Gaston is taking her issue).
Tragic case, good effort on the blog - I appreciate you not putting this in General!
|
On December 13 2012 18:18 Callynn wrote:
I live in a country with one of the most mild justice systems where you can actually consider taking someone's life because you hate him. If they catch you and say your nuts, you can serve 3 years in a comfortable prison with tv. If they don't catch you, free revenge. I don't ever want the option to consider to be present at all. In my opinion, when someone is proven guilty of murder, with the exception of self-defense, they should just get the death penalty.
what? I think I'm missing something here
|
On December 13 2012 23:59 Mementoss wrote:If you want Canadian/American Injustice watch this documentary http://www.dearzachary.com/More on topic, this is ridiculous. He is not safe to be on the streets, you can not judge if something liek this will or will not happen again. To the guy before me, it could be his "damn business" if hes released somewhere in proximity of the OP's location. If the man murders again it could be his friends or family.
i love all those TL users who know better than the doctors who were with this guy during 18months what's up with him. It's sad to see so many ppl seeking revenge instead of justice, and is it my bias or most of them are from NA?
On December 14 2012 00:09 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
he did kill his kidz to get revenge on his ex-wife.
he drank some windshield washer to try and suicide/cloud his judgement. 18 months later hes free.
Imho that cardiologist knew that windshield washer couldnt/wouldnt kill him and he displayed some great acting skills trough the whole process.
fuck that system. Im ashamed.
This is pure defamation and you're the kind of guy who should be trialed and convinced.
|
There are a few things that are fundamental to our justice system that make cases like this possible. You probably know this already but here is a breakdown of some of the key principles in cases like this:
1. To convict someone of a crime in Canada (and in most countries) the prosecution has two prove both a physical act and the mental element (the "guilty mind" or the "mens rea"). In case of murder the mental element that the prosecution has to prove is the intention to kill. If the prosecution fails to prove the intent to kill, it has not proved murder.
2. The prosecution needs to prove both these elements "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a very high standard. The corollary is that if the defence raises a reasonable doubt about the intention to kill, the accused will not be convicted.
3. Most murder trials are heard by juries. A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
4. Getting a jury to find someone not guilty due to insanity (or "mental defect" as it's called in Canadian law) is hard to do. Normal common sense suggests that someone who stabs two little kids to death must have intended to kill them. Any normal person would be very reluctant to say that such a person is not criminally responsible. However, if the juror has a reasonable doubt about the mental element, then they are obliged to find the person not guilty.
5. If a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity, then they are sent to a secure psychiatric hospital to be treated by experts. They stay in the hospital until an independent panel decides to let them go. Often they stay for the rest of their lives. Other times they get out pretty fast.
6. In Quebec the panel is called the "Mental Health Assessment Commission". The commission is like a quasi-court which hears arguments from both sides about whether a person confined to the psychiatric hospital should be released. The commission is composed of experts in the field. If the prisoner is released they are often given conditions that they have to follow to keep from being sent back.
7. It's important to remember that the reason the person is able to get out like this is that they were not convicted of a crime. If they were they would be in the prison system dealing with a completely different process. The person in this case was found not guilty.
Obviously when you look at these principles there is a lot of room for injustices to happen. It's very possible that a person was found not guilty who actually was guilty because they raised a reasonable doubt. When you pick 12 random people you usually get a group that has a lot of common sense and life experience -- but it's very possible to just get a bunch of suckers who will reach a decision that makes no sense. It's very possible that the commission screws up and releases someone who shouldn't be released. They know what they're doing but any system run by human beings will make some mistakes. And so on.
Was it an injustice in this case? I don't think we can decide that by reading about it in the newspaper. But I do think that we have a pretty good justice system in Canada. When you look at the 7 principles I listed above I don't see any one that I would want to change.
Edit: clarity
|
If you commit a crime because of mental illness, and that mental illness can be cured, then you should be able to get treatment and then be released. Please note I'm talking about mental illnesses that were caused by birth defects or mental illnesses that were caused by circumstances beyond your control, like PTSD.
The fact of the matter is, if you were having, say, blackouts where you did stuff, and one time that stuff happened to be murder, you didn't kill the guy. Your medical condition did, and there was nothing you could do to avert either the murder or the mental condition. Honestly, blaming someone like that for murder is like blaming a guy with Autism for being socially incompetent.
Justice doesn't always have to be vengeance, folks. Justice is doing the right thing, and sometimes people need help more than they need punishment.
|
On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem.
During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't.
How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
|
On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem. During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't. How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
That's not a problem with this specific case. It's a problem (if it is even a problem - which I doubt) with the criminal justice system.
From my brief stint working at a Law School I recall being told that jury's are notorious for convictions.
|
On December 13 2012 18:48 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 18:18 Callynn wrote:
I am however glad that there is not a bunch of idiots you can influence as a laywer that 'vote' whether or not someone is guilty. The jury system is something I'm glad about that it's not here. The jury system is a display of democracy. Do you not like democracy?
Democracy is not inherently good.
|
On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:
How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
I guess the answer is that the prosecution has to prove the case. If the case is too complicated to be understood by normal people then it's fair to say that it hasn't been proved.
If the jury doesn't know who to believe then they have to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
|
On December 14 2012 05:31 ziggurat wrote:
If the jury doesn't know who to believe then they have to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
That's probably what happened.
|
On December 13 2012 15:50 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:42 Sufficiency wrote:
Imagine you did something you did not mean to do due to a mental defect. Do you deserve to be punished for life? So if you get drunk then run over a person (and kill them), you can go to AA and your Murder charges are dropped? I don't think so T.T
You can control if you want to drink or not. You don't have control over mental disorders.
|
On December 14 2012 04:10 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem. During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't. How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry? That's not a problem with this specific case. It's a problem (if it is even a problem - which I doubt) with the criminal justice system. From my brief stint working at a Law School I recall being told that jury's are notorious for convictions.
it's interesting because jury have different tendancies from juges, are way more prone to convictions except in some cases where there is a divide between which morality is accepted and what the law prone. I think it's the same in every developed country and looking at the differences between the juries and the judges is rather insightful.
|
On December 14 2012 04:01 cecarriere wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 02:57 ziggurat wrote:
A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree.
In this particular case, this might be part of the problem. During the trial, expert witnesses gave their professional opinion on the mental state of Turcotte when he killed his kids. Some of them said he was ill, some said he wasn't. How are 12 random people suppose to decide which of those experts are right when they don't know anything about psychiatry?
The point of a jury is not to discover the truth, that's the job of the investigators, the prosecutors and the defendants. A jury's job is to take all evidence given in court and come to a conclusion using only that evidence.
If, at any point, a jury member is trying to override testimony using his/her own expertise or knowledge, then they are committing an injustice.
|
But by society's "standards," all killers of children are sick people. Mentally disturbed. This label works to their advantage. Oh I did something horrible? Pity me, for I am not well. I require care, not punishment.
What the case amounts to is that children's lives are worth about 9 months each in a cozy facility. Not only are institutions far more pleasant than the average federal prison, but the sentences sure seem a lot shorter too! How opportunistic!
Just another example of Western culture's trend towards overindulgence of victimization. Nothing is our fault anymore. Let's not be too hard on each other. Accidents happen. Whoops, killed the kids. See you in 18 months guise
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
