Can a Legally Criminally Insane Man Be Convicted of Murder

My question involves criminal law for the state of:

If someone is in a Mental Hospital because they're mentally insane - let's say the guy who shot Reagan and if this guy hypothetically assaulted, raped or murdered someone at the Hospital he's confined too for being judged mentally insane by the courts, can he still be convicted of murder, even if he uses the insanity defense, as the Court has already pronounced him Mentally Insane?

If he is competent to stand trial, they will Prosecute him. If not competent, they can continue to hold him in that mental hospital until such time he can stand trial.

Some states have changed thier standard to "Guilty but mentally ill", instead of "Not guilty by reason of insanity".


Remember, insane/insanity is a legal term, not a medical one.

Isn't executing the mentally ill one of the reasons we are on human rights watch lists? There was a case 5 or 6 years ago that ruled executing retarded people was cruel and unusual but states decide who is mentally ill so it isn't enforcible.

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

Isn't executing the mentally ill one of the reasons we are on human rights watch lists? There was a case 5 or 6 years ago that ruled executing retarded people was cruel and unusual but states decide who is mentally ill so it isn't enforcible.

---

Mentally Ill and retarded are not the same thing. In the case at bar, the defendant had an IQ of 59. Three classes of such exist, imbecile, moron and idiot, with all due respect to our citizens who suffer from this, as the terms are used loosely and commonly to define others also, such a generally "he is an idiot"!

Depending on what criteria is used as a cut off IQ, I don't know per se.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZO.html

In the perfect example of the guy who shot Reagan, he's not considered competent enough to be released from the Mental Facility holding him, so how therefore could he be considered "Competent" to be tried and convicted if he commits a crime there hypothetically like rape, assault or murder? Why wouldn't he automatically be considered Innocent by reason of Insanity as he's legally considered not sane enough to be released?

One is not necessarily incompetent to stand trial just because he is in a mental institution.

From the CA Penal Code:

25. (a) The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished. In
a criminal action, as well as any juvenile court proceeding,
evidence concerning an accused person's intoxication, trauma, mental
illness, disease, or defect shall not be admissible to show or negate
capacity to form the particular purpose, intent, motive, malice
aforethought, knowledge, or other mental state required for the
commission of the crime charged.
(b) In any criminal proceeding, including any juvenile court
proceeding, in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is
entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when
the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he
or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and
quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at
the time of the commission of the offense.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, evidence of diminished capacity
or of a mental disorder may be considered by the court only at the
time of sentencing or other disposition or commitment.
(d) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the
Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote
entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or
by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the
electors.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting Peachesbackwards

---

In the perfect example of the guy who shot Reagan, he's not considered competent enough to be released from the Mental Facility holding him, so how therefore could he be considered "Competent" to be tried and convicted if he commits a crime there hypothetically like rape, assault or murder? Why wouldn't he automatically be considered Innocent by reason of Insanity as he's legally considered not sane enough to be released?

---

Hinckely was found not guilty by reason of insanity, therefore he can not be tried again by the feds when found sane, if he ever is. It is up to the feds to determine if he is sane enough to be released into society.

There's nothing worse than asking a question on a forum and have a person answer a question that wasn't what I was asking. What I asked is if while Hinkley is in the asylum, if he hypothetically killed, assaulted or raped, a person there, even though he is considered insane, could he still be tried for the crime and found guilty despite using the insanity defense for this new crime.

Quote:

---

Quoting Peachesbackwards

---

There's nothing worse than asking a question on a forum and have a person answer a question that wasn't what I was asking. What I asked is if while Hinkley is in the asylum, if he hypothetically killed, assaulted or raped, a person there, even though he is considered insane, could he still be tried for the crime and found guilty despite using the insanity defense for this new crime.

---

Yes. Depending on state law and the nature of mental defect defense laws in that state, of course.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting Peachesbackwards

---

There's nothing worse than asking a question on a forum and have a person answer a question that wasn't what I was asking. What I asked is if while Hinkley is in the asylum, if he hypothetically killed, assaulted or raped, a person there, even though he is considered insane, could he still be tried for the crime and found guilty despite using the insanity defense for this new crime.

---

You're right I will arrange for a full refund and a tiny bottle of Motel 6 shampoo.

The people who post here do so for their own enjoyment and part of that is to debate with other regulars. You got plenty of good answers. Now say you're sorry.

Quote:

---

Quoting Peachesbackwards

---

There's nothing worse than asking a question on a forum and have a person answer a question that wasn't what I was asking. What I asked is if while Hinkley is in the asylum, if he hypothetically killed, assaulted or raped, a person there, even though he is considered insane, could he still be tried for the crime and found guilty despite using the insanity defense for this new crime.

---

Ya know what's worse?

Someone that jumps onto an established forum just so that they can stomp their foot and tell the rest of us how things work here.

This works a little like baseball. If the other person didn't catch it correctly, maybe the problem was in what you threw.

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

You're right I will arrange for a full refund and a tiny bottle of Motel 6 shampoo.

The people who post here do so for their own enjoyment and part of that is to debate with other regulars. You got plenty of good answers. Now say you're sorry.

---

As a matter of fact Kist, now that I reread one of my posts, I have a different response about it, but I won't post it now either!

Quote:

---

Quoting Peachesbackwards

---

...can he still be convicted of murder, even if he uses the insanity defense, as the Court has already pronounced him Mentally Insane?

---

Under common law the concept of "insanity" is a legal concept, not a medical concept. There is no medical diagnosis of "insanity".

In criminal courts, mental illness raises two questions:

First, is the person mentally competent to stand trial - can they understand legal proceedings and participate in their own defense? If not, they can be detained (within limits) and medically treated to try to render them competent to stand trial.

Second, is the person criminally responsible - under the laws of the governing jurisdiction, were they responsible for their acts at the time of the offense such that they can be held criminally responsible for their actions. As that's a legal determination, not a medical determination, the criteria for a finding that a defendant lacked criminal responsibility (or even when the defense is available) varies between jurisdictions.

The fact that you've previously been determined not to be criminally responsible in a separate prosecution doesn't prevent you from being found criminally responsible in a subsequent prosecution.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

The fact that you've previously been determined not to be criminally responsible in a separate prosecution doesn't prevent you from being found criminally responsible in a subsequent prosecution.

---

Since you posted, that was my revision. I meant he could not be tried again for the attempted assassination of Reagan, NOT subsequent crimes, although it may have been interpreted otherwise.