Discussion

[Evan_or_L]

that's true.., I agree with that. Although there is a case I'd like to bring up. A woman had schizophrenia and believed the devil was in her. She believed that if she didn't kill her kids, Satan would drag them to the abyss. She strangled (or was it drown?) all her kids and called the police telling them what she did? Do you think that she was sane enough to stand trial?  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

I say yes. If she was still coherent and 'in contorl of herself' enough to call the cops, she in sane enough to stand a trial.  

[Evan_or_L]

Hmmmm. I can honestly say I'm impressed. It just so happened that they determined her competant because even in her own moral sense she was doing the devil's work. Also, like you said, she also showed a huge case of remorse. Although she had schizo, she still stood trial.  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

Wow, I'm suprised that I was actually right! But anyways, I still say insanity is a mind thing. It all depends on will power, coherentness, personal beliefs, and drive.  

[Evan_or_L]

I suppose so. insanity would be like the paranoid people in the house who call the cops on the UFOs that were near the place.  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

I'm sorry, I looked at that and said, "HUH?" like the teen I naturally am. Can you explain that a little better please?  

[Evan_or_L]

exactly. Insanity is almost like a thought that most people can't understand that isn't found on any precept. It's random beyond teenager random.  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

Hold on........Oh! Yes, I agree! It won't really make sense to anyone but the one that the thought occurs to.  

[Evan_or_L]

What about competency to trial. What would botch it?  

[Annie Anthrax]

I take it by competency to stand trial you are talking about defendants not being fit to be tried?

Well, we've already spoken about mental illness, I suppose being undeveloped mentally. Like people who have the mental age of a child, so they do not fully comprehend what is happening I suppose?  

[Evan_or_L]

I would say that as well. Now as for this whole amnesia concept, I'm not so sure. Some people fake amnesia to get out of court, but if some people legitimately have it, that doesn't seem right... But if they did do it... Well I'll hear opinions first.  

[Annie Anthrax]

Whether someone actually has amnesia or not is a matter for a trained doctor to decide and present to the court. There is probably some legal precedent about amnesia.

I mean, if you rob someone and as you flee you fall and strike your head, leaving you with no memory of the robbery, I feel you are still responsible.

But, if someone completely loses their memory? Are they even still the same person any more!

Plus, if someone suffers from 'blackouts' it could be that they really don't know what they are doing. Like people who do things in their sleep. In such circumstances, I do not feel a person should be culpable for their actions.

I think this because all crimes involve a physical (the crime itself) and a mental (the intention to do said crime) element and if you have one without the other you have no crime. In theory anyway!  

[Evan_or_L]

I agree with most of that but I might debate the point of blackouts. If blackouts are common, it might imply drugs or alcohol. Also if it is common, that is all the more reason to put someone behind bars, or at least to get them help. Now if it's a ten second tom sort of thing, I doubt that it will matter much, but a Jason bourne thing is kind of debatable, or at least in my head it is.  

[Annie Anthrax]

That's probably why it's used so after as a plot point! xd I'd be inclined to agree though. I mean, you'd have to take it on a case by case basis, but if you have allowed yourself to get in that state, then you really only have yourself to blame.

Unless exceptional circumstances apply, of course. But that would be the same for everything.
If only I could recall some cases!

Here's a question for you.
Given the theatrical nature of the courtroom, where it is not so much which side can bring the best evidence, but put on the best show, especially in cases involving vulnerable victims (alleged child victims of sexual abuse for example) and defendants (those who kill their partners after years of alleged domestic abuse say), do special measures in court to protect victims have a negative effect on a trial? And can they affect a defendants right to a fair trial?

By special measures I mean things like, screens, giving evidence via video, restricting details, all that jazz.  

[Evan_or_L]

I don't really believe that theatrics are the wrong things. I believe the problem is in the blame game. If they blame a victim, sometimes, the victim takes the heat and that is truly the problem of the courts. Biases misshapes jury opinions, such as rape victims not getting a fair trial because the victim was "Promiscuous." It's sich, but it happens.