The Supreme Court is hearing a case about whether requiring a criminal defendant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation (for example: to determine mental capacity) violates his 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Pick a side.
How does any normal person do these sick crimes? They should all be considered crazy and punish everyone for the crime.
Fine line there. If you shoot up a place you're automatically sent to get your head checked out.
A mental health eval doesn't incriminate anyone. It determines if they are able to understand the difference between rough and wrong.
Right and wrong**
Someone was asking about you today, Rand. They were worried about not seeing you around for awhile. I think it was in TiltonAllStars poll.
Nice to know I've been missed, lol. I have been busy with rl
Ty for letting me know btw ????
Ugh, still no thumbs up emoji....
It's ok about the thumbs. It's the thought that counts :-)
Unless I have missed something, if the defendant is being asked to take a psych eval, he has already used insanity as a defense. Meaning that he is not denying doing the crime. In that case why can't the state require an evaluation?
Forced to take a psychiatric evaluation for being accused of a crime. So much for rights!
I would agree to psychiatric evaluations after the suspect was found guilty of the crime.
Guilt is partly determined by the state of mind of the defendant
Luckily thought crimes don't exist yet.
I assume you are talking about whether murder was pre-meditated or not?
I think the court could determine first whether the defendant committed the action he/she is suspected of and then administer a psychiatric evaluation
If someone is mentally challenged we shouldn't fry them so I like the psych evaluations
Some acts are so depraved the perpetrator should receive corporeal punishment whether or not they are mentally challenged.
I think if you are charged with a crime any and all test should be allowed to prove your innocence or guilt. especially if their is overwhelming evidence either way
The courts already hold that medical tests are not self-incriminating. By force, the government can take fingerprints, blood samples, and DNA from alleged criminals. I highly doubt the justices will treat psychiatric evaluations any differently.
If you get off the klink because you're insane, you should be put in a hospital, not out on the streets to be dangerous to others, or Scott-free.
That has literally nothing to do with the case at issue.
Fact is yes, this lends to a violation of a persons civil rights if they dont want to do this. However, why should the results even matter? If the person is guilty, sane or not they are a danger to society and need to be taken away from it.
When someone claims insanity to me thats even worse because you've admitted you will never recover and will always be a danger to those around you. F that, that deserves capital punishment not a leaner sentence
What about temporary insanity?
Insanity is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis.
Temporary insanity is BS, youre either nuts in the head or not. Thats an excuse for not having control over your emotions and acting erratically which makes you a danger to society.
Insanity means not sane like nuts. Its a simple term meaning you're crazy, don't let legal jargon confuse you. Saying your nuts isnt a legitimate excuse for killing people and doing bad things.
Is this a case of bleeding hearts being irrational? Remember a defendant's attorney is to use any "legal" method to get a not guilty verdict. Just imagine what would happen to the court system if disallowed. Answer: disaster!
The judge is trying to prove the def is sane while the def is stating he was under the influence and had been awake for over a week. The test should be arbitrary to the case as it evaluates a person who has used in the past, not presently.
How does a psych prove that someone was insane in the past (with no previous history) if they are currently sane?
I guess I can do all kinds of illegal shit and then say "I was crazy yesterday, but ok now, subway this reasonable doubt and set me free!" Twinkie defense? PMS defense?
Exactly the issue.
Sleepy8 - exactly a need a psych evaluation. Past history is important but one must look at the current circumstances. Guilty by reason of insanity is, in some cases, a cop out plea and the Def knows that, The eval is essential to prove yes or no.
Getup baby - I'm not sure I'm following? "Influence, not sure where that fit with a psych evaluation although I guess it could. The insanity plea is over used, and to insure that's the case verification is essential.
I vote against force. Should b a nonissue. If u claim u r/were insane & wont submit to med tests, u just have 2 present other evidence 2 convince a jury. If the court thinks u aren't fit 2 stand trial & u say otherwise they shouldn't b able 2 force u
Poorly worded question... I'm not sure if my vote meant that I believe psychiatric evaluation violates 5th amendment rights or not...
Whether FORCED evaluation is against the 5th or not.
I honestly don't think the punishment should be much different for the mentally handicapped. Either way, crime is crime and we can't have those sorts of criminals wondering the streets.
I take issue with lumping all mentally unhealthy people as "insane". Yes sometimes crimes are committed by a person who wasn't in his/her right mind. It's a complex issue and everyone here seems ready to label people insane, lock 'em up & lose keys.
People can be mentally unhealthy as be sane. But if they cause mass chaos due to whatever reason.. They are insane. By definition not by the perverted term we use.
He should have the choice. The insanity defense should not be able to be claimed, however, unless the test is done. Some other stipulations apply as well.
Does insanity change the fact that they committed a crime?
If the crime contains within its legal definition a mens rea that is precluded by insanity, then yes, it does.
So committing a crime while under the influence of psychoactive drugs or psychotropic medication... Does being under the influence act as an addictive factor (theft WITH a firearm) or mitigating circumstance?
Depends on the crime. Intoxication in some cases changes the nature of the crime, making it a "lesser" crime by definition - in other cases, intoxication is itself a factor in the crime.
I do not agree that insanity is a defense. If anything is should be a reason to protect society EVEN MORE from the person.
Forced psychological evaluations are not a good thing for a society. That's some nazi fascist shit.
Why is it when we disagree with something, we compare it to the Nazis?
Choose a villain:
What joke. Its even called the criminal justice system when it should be called the justice system
Interesting point. Never thought of it that way.
What it should be called is the legal system. It has absolutely nothing to do with justice, which is an abstract theoretical concept (and one everyone defines their own way). It's a system that claims to punish those who break laws, so legal system
That works too
Instead of "Not guilty by reason of insanity", it should be "Guilty AND insane". If they did it, then they are guilty. If they don't want to be evaluated, fine, they are still Guilty. If they want to be evaluated, fine, they are Guilty and insane.
If you are going to claim mental incapacity of innocent by insanity, you darn well better be willing to prove it. And if you're right and you are insane, than 5th doesn't matter because the issue is over.
This particular incident involves a guy who was on meth and didn't sleep for nine days.
after reading the article, i say his rights were violated. i vote for defendant
From the link at bottom, technically it isn't about whether forcing the shrink visit violates the 5th, but whether the defendant's statements can then be used to rebut his evidence. Different question, and I would argue 5th amendment violation.
Not sure if I am seeing the self-incrimination potential. Unless they are seeking to suspend confidentiality as to anything other than the diagnosis? In which case that's a different question.
Just read the link at the bottom and changing my answer. The state is trying to frame the psychological evaluation as expert rebuttal when it's obviously anything but. Rebuttal doesn't give you the right to waive confidentiality on def'a behalf.
I can't see how this could possibly be good for a defendant. Doesn't mental evaluation help his chances? I was on a jury recently where the defense attorney had 3 evaluations done trying to get someone to say the guy was mentally challenged.
I will display my ignorance I do not know enough about the trail to have a valid opinion
Anybody can say hey I'm crazy. If you're using that as a cop out for a crime it better be legitimately tested, analyzed, and proved!
I'm confused. Wouldnt he want to use everything in his power to prove his innocence?
Who, then, will evaluate? Do we trust the State to appoint an unbiased individual? Or does the State have a "go-to" source which may receive gov't subsidies to operate or is State-run.
They can either be charged as an adult with full mental capabilities.... Or they can do a psyc test.
They can't say I am crazy, but you can't test me to make sure I am not crazy.
Diminished mental capacity is too often used as an excuse/crutch/smoke screen.
If a person isn't "with it" enough to know that he or she is too crazy to be held accountable for their actions, a forced evaluation would not be INCRIMINATING, it could only help in this case.
Yes it would be incriminating as it was coerced by law enforcement. What if they really are mentally I'll, but the police want to make the case so they tell their guy to classify him as sane. That's used against him and he stands trial.
If you are claiming insanity as your defense, don't be shocked when you are asked to provide proof for your claims.
I side with the prosecution ONLY if the defense is trying to claim 'not guilty by reason of insanity' or 'temporary insanity.' If they're going to claim that, then the veracity of the claim needs to be determined.
Will the prosecutors be able to determine who examines, or will the defense be able choose?
I say let each of them pick one. If the guy's actually crazy, and they're both credible professional mental health professionals, they'll pick up on it.
If the defendant elects to have a psych eval done, that's fine. *Requiring* it is not ok.
A psych eval is way too intrusive. It's testimonial evidence that could show the suspects thought process which in turn could be used against him.
He evaluate isn't admissible.
It would make sense , but it has a potential danger: Who determines the guidelines for evaluating the psychiatric mental state of the criminal? Big Brother?
Going back in history, I think someone like Hitler would have loved this law.
What if I stop caring so much about the why, and stay focused on the if? That is, if you did it, I don't care why.
Nearly every criminal statute requires "criminal intent" as an element of the offense. The state has a duty to ensure the defendant was capable of forming criminal intent (not mentally impaired) before they prosecute.
What about innocent until proven otherwise? Government should not have the power to force an exam before conviction.
Well, because the 5th Amendment says so, that's why! I guess I agree with the defense on this one. The prosecution will need to prove its case without any input from the defendant.
As long as they are not pleading not guilty by reason of mental defect, ie insanity defense.
Sorry will be relieved that he won't be forced to be evaluated if the defended wins.
We should eliminate insanity as a defense.
That is nonsense. If a person is not competent, he/she should not be treated as if they are.
The defendant should be able to refuse the evaluation but if he does he then loses his ability to claim any kind of insanity defense.
We'll said. This could come back to haunt them.
He shouldn't lose his right to claim insanity. He can claim whatever he wishes, however, try proving insanity without a psych evaluation prior to trial. Good luck with that!
Except that, in this case, an eval would prove him sane. His argument is that he was up for so long on meth that he hadn't the ability to understand what he was doing at the time of incident.
That seems fairly obvious. The dependent has the enumerated right to refuse any type of communication with any other individual, no matter the reason.
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
That doesn't cover every communication. There are several exceptions to the 5th amendment.
Point these exceptions out for me in the text.
Spontaneous utterance, dying declaration, consent.
None of those involve coercion, so the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to them. They aren't exceptions.
They are exceptions to the 5th amendment. They allow a defendant's statements to be used against them in court.
Read the text:
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
Nor shall be *compelled*
Anything he says on his own volition is still admissible. No exception necessary.
It's not an exception if the defendant waives his own right to remain silent. Forcing a defendant to take any sort of eval is against the 5th.
Semantics. Everyone refers to them as exceptions to the 5th.
That's fine, "everyone" can call it whatever they please, but reality is not altered by their opinion.
Semantics give meaning to language, so semantics is very important as always.
Lawyer here. Those are not considered exceptions to the fifth amendment. They are considered exceptions to the rules of evidence excluding the use of out of court statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein (the 'hearsay' rule).
Only dying declaration is. The other two allow a defendant's own statements to be used against them in court. That's why Miranda warns that "anything you say can and will be used against you in court."
Spontaneous utterance is also a hearsay exception - otherwise you couldn't introduce evidence someone said it outside of court. And I'm assuming by "consent" you mean statement against interest or something similar along impeachment lines. Same idea.
Regardless, they are not exceptions to the 5th amendment. The Miranda warnings themselves are a statement of 5th amendment rights. The 5th amendment does not say your words won't be used against you; it says that you don't have to use any words.
This question is not clear...which side is the defendant in this Supreme Court case? Is the state defending its actions or is the meth head defending his rights?
I ran out of room to make it more clear. I figured people would get that "prosecution" means you are siding with the state's ability to force a psych assessment, and "defendant" means you are siding with the accused criminal's ability to decline.
How can determining ability to understand actions determine what actions took place?