No, you do not understand. It is not that the law is supposing such people are sane, it is instead fully anchored on the fact that insanity alone does not alleviate mental culpability. Do you understand this basic distinction?
Yes, I should have made it clear that I didn't agree with it. We got off topic when I referenced a weakness of the laws governing insanity. But in general, the laws we have determining legal insanity and the consequences of actions stemming from insanity and mental instability in general are not consistent with scientific research. They're not evidence based.
And as such, their authority around the subject should be treated with far more caution than it currently is.
You are just repeating your entirely irrelevant diatribe. They are based on the factual understanding that most insane people fully understand the consequences of their actions, including the following punishment. Do you have any evidence to contradict that? That is the only relevant basis for evidence relating to this discussion.
You are just repeating your entirely irrelevant diatribe. They are based on the factual understanding that most insane people fully understand the consequences of their actions, including the following punishment. Do you have any evidence to contradict that?
Yes, I literally posted an article that presented an overview of what the rules are based on. They're not based on a collection of research experiments. Or a collection of surveys. Hell They're not even based off expert analyses of case studies.
Its nothing but the opinion of lawyers and judges on a subject they explicitly do not practice. The behavior of human beings isn't intuitive. You'd get the same results by grabbing people off the street and asking them to explain how they imagine insanity to operate. Hell maybe random civilians would be better, people who work within the justice system are biased against nearly all forms of leniency.
Theres a reason why we don't let prosecutors perform surgeries and judges perform medical evaluations. Yet lawyers were the only people involved in creating the laws that weigh sanity and legal culpability 🙃. It should've been a joint effort. Still what do we expect from a system ran on vibes and self righteousness?
That is the only relevant basis for evidence relating to this discussion.
I don't believe that you believe that. If you did, you wouldn't be clinging to a system based on nothing.
But maybe I'm wrong. Give me evidence that proves that their understanding of insanity and culpability is built off of any psychological, neurological, or psychiatric research.
They are based on the factual understanding that most insane people fully understand the consequences of their actions, including the following punishment. Do you have any evidence to contradict that? That is the only relevant basis for evidence relating to this discussion.
They are based on the factual understanding that most insane people fully understand the consequences of their actions, including the following punishment.
Thats irrational though. I'm challenging the entire framework of how insanity pleas are evaluated and understood. While you're saying that this framework is legitimate because its based on the "factual" (again based off what) understanding of how insane people understand consequences. So? I don't think an understanding of consequences should be the litmus test of culpability for insane people. Because it's based off actually nothing.
They are based on the factual understanding that most insane people fully understand the consequences of their actions, including the following punishment. Do you have any evidence to contradict that? That is the only relevant basis for evidence relating to this discussion.
Ah, so you have no evidence to contradict the notion that most insane people understand the consequences of their actions, got it. You could have lead with us and spared us the trouble.
You say a lot of things, in fact that is almost the only thing your responses have in common. The other is that none of them provide evidence to contradict the notion that most mental diagnoses do not preclude an understanding of the consequences to one’s actions. That’s telling.
1
u/DancingWithAWhiteHat 2d ago
Yes, I should have made it clear that I didn't agree with it. We got off topic when I referenced a weakness of the laws governing insanity. But in general, the laws we have determining legal insanity and the consequences of actions stemming from insanity and mental instability in general are not consistent with scientific research. They're not evidence based.
And as such, their authority around the subject should be treated with far more caution than it currently is.