"Kill Mummy for God"

[Twoyboy]

G'day All,

Long time lurker here, but I had to sign up just to share this one with all of you.

A Kalgoorlie man who slit his mother's throat because he heard voices telling him to "kill mummy for God" has been found not guilty of murder on grounds of insanity.

But chronically paranoid schizophrenic Enoch Samuel Wright, 30, is likely to spend the rest of his life in a high security mental unit for killing Patricia Lynette Wright, 56, in Kalgoorlie in 2005.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67969

I used to live in Kalgoorlie, and, being the mining centre of WA, is usually about the most rational place you can get. Makes me wonder if there's anywhere these ideas can't "infect".

[Lord Zentei]

Sounds like genuine insanity to me, quite frankly. Hearing voices telling you to do such and such is a symptom of schizophrenia, after all.

[RedImperator]

If the guy is hearing voices telling him to kill people, then his brain is broken and hearing God tell him things is just how it manifests itself. If nobody had ever heard of God, it would have been Ahura Mazda, or Baal, or Darth Vader.

[Dooey Jo]

Reading the title, I thought this would be about some guy that's on a divine mission to kill ancient mummies. Too bad it turned out to be awful...

[Zor]

Reading the title, I thought this would be about some guy that's on a divine mission to kill ancient mummies. Too bad it turned out to be awful...

I second this remark.

Zor

[Big Phil]

Is there a valid reason why people are "not guilty by reason of instanity" rather than "guilty but insane?"

[Twoyboy]

Reading the title, I thought this would be about some guy that's on a divine mission to kill ancient mummies. Too bad it turned out to be awful...

Apologies, I'll add a disclaimer next time.

Is there a valid reason why people are "not guilty by reason of instanity" rather than "guilty but insane?"

I doubt there's a valid reason, but I'd say it has something to do with being of sound mind when you make a decision. Same as being able to get out of a signed contract if at the time you were doped up on painkillers, something I know a lot about at the moment having had my wisdom teeth out on Thursday.

[Big Phil]

Is there a valid reason why people are "not guilty by reason of instanity" rather than "guilty but insane?"

I doubt there's a valid reason, but I'd say it has something to do with being of sound mind when you make a decision. Same as being able to get out of a signed contract if at the time you were doped up on painkillers, something I know a lot about at the moment having had my wisdom teeth out on Thursday.

I'm curious as to reasons in criminal law, not civil. It makes perfect sense in civil law to throw out contracts or the like that are signed or agreed upon when you're in an altered state of mind; I'm not sure I agree that the same standard should apply to criminal law.

[Vendetta]

Essentially in criminal law the concept of guilt requires that the guilty is capable of understanding that his actions are illegal.

However, as was recently posted in another thread, the vast majority of these cases are sent to secure treatment centres, which is what they need, as it removes them from being a danger to society and means they have access to treatment.

[RedImperator]

Is there a valid reason why people are "not guilty by reason of instanity" rather than "guilty but insane?"

Because "guilty" in American jurisprudence doesn't just mean "he did it", it means "he did it and he is responsible for it". If your brain is so screwed up that you're unaware of what you're doing, or cannot tell right from wrong, you can't be responsible for your actions.

An insanity verdict is hardly a walk, incidentally. If you're found not guilty of a serious crime by reason of insanity, you're going to the bughouse. And unlike a jail term, which always has a maximum length (assuming you don't commit any more crimes in jail), if you're involuntarily committed, you stay until you're cured, which in many cases is "never".

[Patrick Degan]

Is there a valid reason why people are "not guilty by reason of instanity" rather than "guilty but insane?"

I doubt there's a valid reason, but I'd say it has something to do with being of sound mind when you make a decision. Same as being able to get out of a signed contract if at the time you were doped up on painkillers, something I know a lot about at the moment having had my wisdom teeth out on Thursday.

I'm curious as to reasons in criminal law, not civil. It makes perfect sense in civil law to throw out contracts or the like that are signed or agreed upon when you're in an altered state of mind; I'm not sure I agree that the same standard should apply to criminal law.

Much of American criminal law revolves around the concept of intent in order to determine the degree of responsibility for an offence. For example, if a man is committing a robbery but is under duress to do so (his family is being held hostage), he did not commit his acts under criminal intent and therefore is not guilty under the law. Degrees of murder are determined by intent: a killing committed in the heat of the moment, under extreme passion, differs from a premeditated act: the former occurred without previous intent to kill while the latter act is formed entirely by the intent to kill. In the case of "not guilty by reason of insanity", the theory is that an insane person is incapable of judging right from wrong or in some cases even knowing exactly what he is doing at a given moment and is not capable of forming intent by any standard of rational thinking.