It can get kind of tricky when you have two experts testifying in court who contradict each other, as happened in the case of Latisha Lawson, on trial for the murder of her 2-year-old son:
Another unanswered question is whether Lawson was sane at the time of Jezaih's death. Two doctors
Comments
I agree completely. In most jurisdictions, persons adjudged insane wind up doing longer sentences than people who are simply convicted. Both groups wind up in secure facilities with locks on the doors and bars on the windows. I have no interest in torturing convicted criminals, sane or otherwise; I just want them put someplace where they can't get near me or any other innocent person.
If someone is incompetent at time of the crime, they couldn't behave. If someone is incompetent at time of the trial, they can't defend themselves on the charge. I can figure out what to do if they're competent for both or incompetent for both, but when they are competent for one and not for the other, I get confused.
There's also the matter that, at least on TV, insanity is defined as the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, and conform their behavior accordingly. It seems odd to have courts, which are ordinarily in the legal/illegal business, suddenly judging right/wrong instead.
The Unabomber refused an insanity plea because the guilty don't lose their rights when locked up. The insane DO.
As I read more and more about the Lawson case, it becomes more difficult to understand how any judge or jury could consider her sane in any sense of the word - legal or medical. I have no solutions to offer, alas, or I'd be a wealthy man, but she was and is clearly completely batcrap crazy. She belongs somewhere, but not in prison.