[Wolfman]

I feel we're going in circles

We're going in circles because you're taking a position that presupposes that a person in the middle of a psychotic break is capable to giving informed consent.

[JethroDull]

I found Schaler's arguments unpersuasive.

First, involuntary committment and the insanity defense involve completely different liberty interests and should addresed discretely. The liberty interest involved with involuntary committment is far greater than that involved with a criminal defendant. The former, perceived by the state as a risk to him or herself, is involuntarily restrained for further evaluation and/or treatment. The criminal defendant has already lost his liberty interest upon an arrest based on the state's belief, by a standard of probable cause, that he or she has committed a crime. The ciminal defendant's liberty interest is addressed in a bail hearing and has nothing to do with the insanity defense.

I'll only address the Schaler's argument's relating to the insantity defense. There are two major failures.

The first major failure of Schaler's argument is that his article fails to identify or address the underlying purpose of the criminal insanity defense. The state's power to establish laws and punish for their disobedience also requires the state to guage the criminal defendant's moral culpability. Certain crimes, such as those involving the death of another person, necessarily require some consideration of the criminal defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was committed. The law generally refers to this as 'scienter.' Not all crimes have a 'scienter' component, many lesser crimes simply require proof that the prohibited act was committed. When a ciminal defendant's mental state is not a part of the crime, this is called strict liability - You committed the act, we don't care what you were thinking at the time you committed the act, proof that the act itself was committed is alone sufficient to find you guilty.

When a criminal defendant's state of mind is an element of the crime, the law calls this 'mens rea.' Schaler uses the term mens rea in his article, but fails to appreciate how mens rea relates to criminal justice. The crime of murder, arguably society's greatest crime against the state, has always been divided into numerous categories involving the person's mens rea. Definitions vary between jurisdictions, but are often referred to as first degree, second degree, and manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary). The criminal defendant's 'mens rea' is the only element that varies between these various classification of murder. Under each definition, the actions of one person caused another person to die.

Understanding (and proving beyond a reasonable doubt) the alleged criminal defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime allows the state to morally guage the severity of the crime and administer an appropriate level of justice. All murder involves a death. Not all deaths involved actors who are equally morally culpable.

Criminal insanity is theory of criminal jurisprudence that absolves a ciminal defendant of criminal liability if they were 'criminally insane' at the time they commit a murder. Some of the various legal standards for criminal insanity are found in Schaler's article. The underlying theory and purpose of the criminal insanity defense is that occasionally some people commit an act that results in a death, but at the time the person committed the act they were so unaware of their actions that they did not perceive or understand that the consequences of their act could result in death. Again, the formal legal defintions vary.

Schaler's attack on the insanity defense from a libertarian perspective, and largely based on phyciatric coercion, is weak because it neglects link psychiatric coercion to the underlying purpose of the insanity defense - ascertaining the criminal defendant's moral culpability.

The second major failure of Schaler's argument is that it incorrectly describes the role of the psychiatrist in the criminal insanity defense. The purpose of a psychiatrist, or other mental health expert, in an insanity defense is only to give an opinion with regard to the criminal defendant's state of mind at the time of the alleged criminal act. And while the psychiatrist may, in providing his or her opinion, consider the criminal defendant's history prior to or subsequent of the alleged act in his opinion, only the criminal defendant's state of mind at the time of the actual act is at issue. Schaler incorrectly argues that the criminal insanity defense involves psychiatric coercion. Psychiatrists involved in insanity defense matters, and there will be at least two whenever the state disagrees with the defendant's insanity defense, are not required (and in many cases do not) actually treat the criminal defendant.

A better argument for psychiatric coercion in criminal proceedings is whether a criminal defendant may or should be ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment in order to obtain the legal competence necessary to enter a valid plea. A person who does not understand the nature of their legal proceedings is also not competent to make decisions, such as entering a plea or agreeing to a plea agreement, that materially effect their legal proceedings.

A criminal insanity defense does not even involve psychiatric coercion.

Schaler uses Ted Kaczynski as an example of a criminal defendant subjected to psychiatric coercion. Mr. Kaczynski's attorneys, over his objection, asserted an insanity defense. What Schaler confuses with psychiatric coercion is the state's obligation to guage the moral culpability of Mr. Kaczynski's crimes. Kaczynski ("Ted" because its easier to type) lost his liberty rights by committing crimes. If Ted valued his liberty, he would not have committed his crimes. This is the deterrent aspect of criminal justice. By committing his crimes, Ted vacated his personal liberty interests and subjected himself to the authority of the state because the state, by and through its peoples, have decided that the acts committed by Ted are worth of liberty deprivation. Where Schaler misses the point is that once subjected to the authority of the state, the state's obligation to morally guage the culpability of his action supercedes his liberty interests. Even entry of an insanity defense over his objection.

[Soixante-Retard]

JethroDull, regardless of the intentions of the why the insanity defense was brought into law, for which intentions, I think, you incorrectly state, what are the results of the insanity defense? It exonerates guilty people of their crimes - it excuses them for their responsibility - and it deprives their victims of justice. Lawyers who invoke the insanity defense argue that a person's crimed was caused by their "illness" rather than the crime being perpertrated for a reason. Szasz explains:

The problem is that whenever a person factually guilty of committing a serious crime pleads insanity, the jury is asked to answer an intrinsically nonsensical question, namely, what "caused" the defendant to commit his wrongful act: his self or his mental illness? If the former, then he is a guilty victimizer. If the latter, then he is an innocent victim (of insanity). I say the question is nonsensical because, regardless of whether a person is (deemed to be) sane or insane, he has reasons, not causes, for his action. If we regard the actor's reasons as absurd or "crazy," we call him insane or mentally ill. However, that does not prove that an alleged condition ("insanity" or "mental illness") caused him to commit the forbidden act. In short, the insanity defense combines and conflates two problematic elements about "insanity": 1) what is "it" (as a phenomenon or disease)?; 2) does it cause and excuse bad behavior?

Millions of people are said to be mentally ill or insane. Not all of them commit crimes. Although a mad person such as Mr. Goldstein is regarded as being mad much of the time or even all of the time, he kills only some of the time. When a mad person kills someone -- just as when he petitions a court to be released or eats his dinner -- he does so because he decides to do so. Hence, if the madman commits a crime, justice demands that we take him seriously and punish him for his deed.

For example, if Anders Behring Breivik is found not guilty via a declaration of being "criminally insane" (pause to think about that phrase) do you think he is innocent of perpetrating that massacre? Of course not - he's excused of his responsibility, that's all. He being "criminally insane" doesn't invalidate the fact that he committed the act. So the insanity defense is a mockery of justice.

So, when you say:

...the underlying purpose of the insanity defense - ascertaining the criminal defendant's moral culpability.

It is quite the opposite! The purpose of the insanity defense is to ascertain a criminal defendant's, supposed, innocence. It's called an insanity defense - a defense tactic to be used by the defendant for claiming his innocence of the crime for that is what a defendant does when he defends himself, viz. claims his innocence of perpetrating a crime - "it wasn't me who did it, it was my other self". Exactly what Hinckley's lawyers pushed for and successfully got - Hinckley was found not guilty of shooting Reagan by insanity.

Though thank you JethroDull for spending some time to write an analysis, albeit one I do not agree with. If you'd like to discuss this further I'd be delighted to engage with any further criticisms you have.

[Wolfman]

It exonerates guilty people of their crimes - it excuses them for their responsibility - and it deprives their victims of justice. Lawyers who invoke the insanity defense argue that a person's crimed was caused by their "illness" rather than the crime being perpertrated for a reason.

The insanity defense in the US is used in less then 1% of cases, and is successful in less then 1% of cases, even when the person meets the state's definition of insanity, and is successful almost always because the person is clearly schizophrenic. And even when the person is clearly schizophrenic that doesn't mean the insanity defense will even work.

[Soixante-Retard]

Wolfman, have you looked up "schizophrenia" in the DSM? Applying the DSM's definition with rigor and consistency, we find that we're all schizophrenic. Omigosh! [/sarcasm]

"Symptoms" of schizophrenia according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV):

Schizophrenia
A. Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):

(1) delusions

(2) hallucinations

(3) disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)

(4) grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior

(5) negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition

Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the person's behavior or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each other.

Bizarre according to whom? Diagnosis is, then, an ethical judgment, not a medical one.

delusion
noun

a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

Thus anyone who has held a political belief that is false and still holds on to it even after confronted with contrary evidence (because it might provide comfort, for example) is, ipso facto, deluded and thus schizophrenic. That would make everybody here on PoFo a schizophrenic, and everyone on Capitol Hill and, with near certainty, everyone who has ever existed and will ever exist. Omigosh we're all schizoids!

[Wolfman]

And you say you aren't an anti-psychiatrist. If you would like we could look at the mountains of evidence for the existence of mental disorders, or would you rather play Mr. Selective Illiteracy and ignore the part of the definition that says:
each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period

Bizarre according to whom? Diagnosis is, then, an ethical judgment, not a medical one.

Bizarre according to the patient or provided if the patient cannot speak for him/herself. I have knee pain, but unless the pain is unusual and persistent, a doctor would tell me to buck up.

Thus anyone who has held a political belief that is false and still holds on to it even after confronted with contrary evidence (because it might provide comfort, for example) is, ipso facto, deluded and thus schizophrenic.

Deluded yes, medically deluded no, schizophrenic no. You're taking an incredibly unrealistic simple reading of the definition and declaring it applies to everyone. Anyone with half an understanding of psychology would understand this.

Delusions are medically valid + bizarre = a symptom of schizophrenia. You would have noticed this if you are weren't an ideologue that denies that science is a real thing.

[dgun]

Here is a definition of delusion in more specific terms, and as it relates to medicine:

A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue. These irrational beliefs defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to dispute them. Delusions are often accompanied by hallucinations and/or feelings of paranoia, which act to strengthen confidence in the delusion. Delusions are distinct from culturally or religiously based beliefs that may be seen as untrue by outsiders.

Some distinctions need to be made here.

I may believe in supply side economics, and no matter how much evidence I'm presented with I don't budge. My arguments may become completely irrational. But does that mean I'm delusional in a medical sense? Well, of course not.

On the other hand, what if I believe I'm Napoleon?

And what if I believe a mediocre science fiction writer is some kind of prophet savior and that everyone on Earth is possessed by "space ghosts"? Well, in a medical sense, I still would not necessarily be delusional, although generally speaking I would be pretty freaking delusional.

Sometimes people claim to hold beliefs that on some level they know is not true. But they unwaveringly declare these beliefs based on some motivation. And I imagine this belief is just as genuine as anything else. And what would be the motivation for people to believe in something as idiotic as Scientology? Oh, that is one of the strongest human instincts of all.

[Soixante-Retard]

each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period

So are you saying, I'm trying not to laugh, one can only be temporarily schizophrenic?

Bizarre according to the patient or provided if the patient cannot speak for him/herself. I have knee pain, but unless the pain is unusual and
persistent, a doctor would tell me to buck up.

Discarding the incongruity between the first sentence, where you say it is bizarre according to the patient, with second sentence, where you immediate contradict yourself by implying the decision as to whether it is unusual is with the doctor. The decision as to whether a behavior, or a medical condition, is bizarre or not lies with an assessor; the psychiatrist or, in medical scenarios, the doctor.

Delusions are medically valid + bizarre = a symptom of schizophrenia.

Wolfman: "I'll completely ignore that you've provided a definition of psychiatric delusion, from dictionary.com, and instead provide my own definition to completely demolish this straw man I've constructed".

Way to go.

You would have noticed this if you are weren't an ideologue that denies that science is a real thing.

When you've run out of arguments you can always resort to attributing to me false beliefs.

[JethroDull]

JethroDull, regardless of the intentions of the why the insanity defense was brought into law, for which intentions, I think, you incorrectly state, what are the results of the insanity defense? It exonerates guilty people of their crimes - it excuses them for their responsibility - and it deprives their victims of justice. Lawyers who invoke the insanity defense argue that a person's crimed was caused by their "illness" rather than the crime being perpertrated for a reason. Szasz explains:

A defense of criminal insanity does not exonerate guilty people of their crimes. A person who is criminally insane at the time he commits the 'crime' is not guilty of a crime. I.e., His acts are not a violation of criminal statute. As Schaler himself points out, mens rea is an element to most serious crimes. Criminal insanity simply acknowledges that the defendant did not have the requisite state of mind at the time he committed the 'act.' [I'll use 'act,' going forward because using 'crime' presupposes that the defendant's actions constitute a crime].

May the victims of the criminal defendant's acts, such as the decedent's family, feel deprived of justice? Absolutely. Does sucessfully arguing a criminal insanity defense mean that the defendant walks free? Hardly. And a libertarian might ponder who enjoys greater residual personal liberty, the convicted felon in a penitentiary or the insane person confined to a sanatorium? I'd wager the former.

The problem is that whenever a person factually guilty of committing a serious crime pleads insanity, the jury is asked to answer an intrinsically nonsensical question, namely, what "caused" the defendant to commit his wrongful act: his self or his mental illness? If the former, then he is a guilty victimizer. If the latter, then he is an innocent victim (of insanity). I say the question is nonsensical because, regardless of whether a person is (deemed to be) sane or insane, he has reasons, not causes, for his action. If we regard the actor's reasons as absurd or "crazy," we call him insane or mentally ill. However, that does not prove that an alleged condition ("insanity" or "mental illness") caused him to commit the forbidden act. In short, the insanity defense combines and conflates two problematic elements about "insanity": 1) what is "it" (as a phenomenon or disease)?; 2) does it cause and excuse bad behavior?

Millions of people are said to be mentally ill or insane. Not all of them commit crimes. Although a mad person such as Mr. Goldstein is regarded as being mad much of the time or even all of the time, he kills only some of the time. When a mad person kills someone -- just as when he petitions a court to be released or eats his dinner -- he does so because he decides to do so. Hence, if the madman commits a crime, justice demands that we take him seriously and punish him for his deed.

Szasz is wrong when he says "a person factually guilty of committing a serious crime . . ." Until a defendant is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they have not committed a crime. The correct phrasing is "a person whose acts lead to results that would ordinarily constitute a serious crime." Might sound like tedious semantics, but, again, the truly 'criminally insane' person has not committed a crime.

To the extent I follow Szasz's argument attempting to distinguing "cause" from "reason," I don't believe it (1) gives a fair account of the legal standard for legal insanity or (2) is logically defensible.

Take M'Naughten's rule as an example. The instruction given to a jury in a jurisdiction that follows the M'Naughten rule would read something like this:

Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and . . . that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party ACCUSED was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

A jury isn't simply asked whether a mental illness "caused" his actions. The jury is asked whether because of a mental disease or defect he did not know the nature and quality of the act itself. This is not strictly a causation inquiry. The inquiry is also, ironically to Szasz's argument, an inquiry into the "reason" that the act was committed. I.e., the jury is being asked to consider whether the reason the act was committed was on account of a mental disease/defect creating an act the nature and quality of which was unknown to the actor. Parsing between "cause" and "reason" is overly simplified and not useful.

In addition, if Szasz's "reason" theorm is considered, he essentially argues that because every person, even the criminally insane, have a reason for their actions, they therefore should be found liable for their acts. Szasz lives in a very harsh world. A four year old girl who inadvertently steps on a handgun, discharging it, and causing the death of person is as culpable as the first degree murderer. After all, the four year old girl had a reason for her actions - she was chasing a butterfly.

Another difficulty with Szasz's 'reason' concept is this: Wouldn't any honest attempt to understand the reason a person acted necessarily require some inquiry into the person's state of mind (scienter)? Do we simply observe the act itself and decide for ourselves what the reason is? Can we do only that and sincerely conclude that we have made a good faith effort to ascertain the actor's reasons? Of course not. Szasz's own "reason" standard demands that we consider the actor's mental state.

[Soixante-Retard]

A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue. These irrational beliefs defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to dispute them. Delusions are often accompanied by hallucinations and/or feelings of paranoia, which act to strengthen confidence in the delusion. Delusions are distinct from culturally or religiously based beliefs that may be seen as untrue by outsiders.

I'd agree with that definition, except for the very last sentence. But notice the language. The definition says "Delusions are often accompanied by hallucinations". It doesn't say that delusions are exclusively accompanied by "hallucinations".

Thus, by definition, both this:

I may believe in supply side economics, and no matter how much evidence I'm presented with I don't budge. My arguments may become completely irrational. But does that mean I'm delusional in a medical sense? Well, of course not.

and this:

On the other hand, what if I believe I'm Napoleon?

if false and are still believed, after contrary evidence is given, are necessarily delusions according to the strict interpretation of the definition you provide.


But in one instance, you're labelled "schizophrenic" and in the other you are not. Why is that? Is it to do with the ethical judgments of those who are assessing as to whether the first constitutes a delusion and second doesn't? "We" don't find it unethical that one should believe in supply-side economics but we do if one believe's they are Napoleon. There is, as explained, no difference - in principle - between them. If they are both false and both still believed after they are shown to be false then they are both delusions of the same category. Dgun, you may be interested in this article. The article concisely highlights the arbitrariness of what constitutes a delusion, and thus schizophrenic, and what doesn't- especially regarding homosexuality.

And what would be the motivation for people to believe in something as idiotic as Scientology?

Don't know. But should said Scientologists, fascists, Wolfman ( ) or anyone be denied their liberty, viz. incarcerated, based on what they believe and if their behavior doesn't violate anyone else rights? I am emphatically of the opinion that no one should be incarcerated on what they believe (freedom of thought and speech) and that individuals should only be incarcerated if their behaviors have violated the rights of others. I do not regard coercion exercised over an individual for his "own good, either physical or moral, ... [as] sufficient warrant" to coerce him.

[Wolfman]

So are you saying, I'm trying not to laugh, one can only be temporarily schizophrenic?

You cannot be fucking serious.

[Soixante-Retard]

This sentence:

A [successful?] defense of criminal insanity does not exonerate guilty people of their crimes.

is contradicted by the sentence that follows it immediately:

A person who is criminally insane at the time he commits the 'crime' is not guilty of a crime.

Which is it? Is the person, regardless of his prior sanity - which, if he has not been assessed, is unknowable - not guilty if an insanity defense is successful, i.e. does it exonerate him of responsibility for the crime, or does it not? Your second sentence suggests it does if it is factually proven that the person did commit the crime.

What has happened is law has constructed, under the guise of "mercy", a dualism between conscious decision making, or acts, and the mind. The law holds that if the mind is proven to be "sick" - which Szasz says is metaphorical - (proven by an agent of the State - a psychiatrist) then that person is not responsible for his acts. His sick mind has exonerated him, or more specifically the psychiatrist's testimony has exonerated him. The State then uses this excuse to coerce the individual into making his "sick" mind "healthy" by incarcerating him outside society, i.e. in an asylum. He is "created sick and commanded to be well". State psychiatrists see involuntary incarceration as relieving the incarcerated person and his family the burden of coping with their behavior by involuntarily medicating the person and calling it "treatment".

May the victims of the criminal defendant's acts, such as the decedent's family, feel deprived of justice? Absolutely. Does sucessfully arguing a criminal insanity defense mean that the defendant walks free?

No it shouldn't. Abolish the insanity defense. If the person is guilty punish them just as would would anyone else.

who enjoys greater residual personal liberty, the convicted felon in a penitentiary or the insane person confined to a sanatorium? I'd wager the former.

And that is why I object to it. What is the difference? The former is guilty of committing a crime. The latter is guilty of having a mental illness - for the person in the sanatorium is there because he was successful with his insanity plea.

Millions of people are said to be mentally ill or insane. Not all of them commit crimes.

Indeed.

Although a mad person such as Mr. Goldstein is regarded as being mad much of the time or even all of the time, he kills only some of the time.

Precisely. This is what I am saying! The fact that a person has a mental illness is not sufficient to commit a crime he must do something else and that is commit a criminal act. Thus punish him for the criminal act not for being mentally ill - because it was not his mental illness that caused him to act criminally he had reasons, the mens rea, to act criminally. Find out those reasons and punish the person according. Don't let him get off because you say he has a mental illness because it was not the mental illness that caused the criminal act. Does Insanity Cause Crime?

When a mad person kills someone -- just as when he petitions a court to be released or eats his dinner -- he does so because he decides to do so.

Precisely, this is what Szasz is saying and why he argues against the insanity defense. You may think that you don't agree with Szasz's position but everything you said so far is his position. So in fact, you are in much accordance with Szasz. Re-read him again because I know how easy it is to misinterpret Szasz (I initially thought he was "mad").

[JethroDull]

Soixante-Retard, to make a medical anaolgy, you (and Schaler) are arguing with the symptoms of the insanity defense without understanding the nature of the illness itself. Schaler's reasoning is not pursuasive, and that is the least objectionable term I can use.

Also, the last three quotes that you attribute to me are part of the quote you originally attributed to Szasz.

Looking foward to hearing you opinions on other matters in the future.

Please afford yourself to the opportunity to have the last word.

[Soixante-Retard]

Soixante-Retard, to make a medical anaolgy, you (and Schaler) are arguing with the symptoms of the insanity defense without understanding the nature of the illness itself. Schaler's reasoning is not pursuasive, and that is the least objectionable term I can use.

Okay.

Also, the last three quotes that you attribute to me are part of the quote you originally attributed to Szasz.

I apologize for attributing them to you - very careless of me.

Please afford yourself to the opportunity to have the last word.

Okay but only because you started (the dialogue between us), your very kind to afford me the last word. Though it is only a recommendation and that is if you want to have a better understanding of my position, I don't ask that you agree with it - just understand it - then I recommend reading Thomas Szasz's Law, Liberty and Pyschiatry - I think you'd find it interesting.

[Soixante-Retard]

Jacob Sullum's very sobering reaction essay to Schaler and Frances.

[JethroDull]

* wanders awkwardly back into the thread *

Soixante-Retard, I didn't intend to be rude with my abruptness, hence the * cheers * icon, but there just isn't much else I can say against Schaler's piece. We simply disagree.

Attacking the validity of a psychiatry as a profession is an amateurish approach to arguing against the insanity defense.

Let's assume that Szasz' opinion is correct - psychiatrists are frauds and quacks, wholly without understanding or insight into the human mind. Does it necessarily follow that the insanity defense should be abolished?

No.

Why? Because society had decided that the acts of some people are so dissociated from their understanding of the consequences of their acts that we absolve them from criminal responsibility. Mr. Schaler doesn't like this result because it deprives the victims of justice. Last I checked, giving a shit about people's feelings is not an important libertarian concept. Pick your horse Mr. Schaler.

As I stated earlier, Mr. Schaler's arguments fail to appreciate the purpose of the insanity defense or even understand the role of the psychiatrist in the legal proceedings.

I hold many libertarian ideals very closely, but much libertarian commentary strikes me as the product of a person who has spent too much time pontificating to an audience who already agrees with them, and not enough time trying to gain a realistic understanding of how the world actually works.

[Soixante-Retard]

Soixante-Retard, I didn't intend to be rude with my abruptness, hence the * cheers * icon, but there just isn't much else I can say against Schaler's piece. We simply disagree.

No, no, I understand. I acknowledged this by simply saying "okay". I hope wasn't suggesting anything other than we simply disagree - we might not agree but we can still be civil.

Attacking the validity of a psychiatry as a profession is an amateurish approach to arguing against the insanity defense.

Szasz and Schaler aren't arguing against the validity of the psychiatric profession - they don't want to ban psychiatry - they want to abolish coercive psychiatry. Szasz is very content with people paying psychiatrists and acting along a consensual contract, just as you do with your medical doctor, your priest, your shopkeeper etc. In fact, Szasz practices this voluntary, consensual psychiatry.

Let's assume that Szasz' opinion is correct - psychiatrists are frauds and quacks

As I have said, that is not what Szasz believes - he is a psychiatrist himself and a huge admirer of Freud to boot.


Also, as I have said, I recommend reading Szasz's Law, Liberty and Psychiatry to fully understand his (subtle) argument because so far you have misinterpreted him.

[JethroDull]

The defendant's right to be free from coercive psychiatry does not trump the State's obligation to decide whether he is guilty of a crime.

[Soixante-Retard]

The defendant's right to be free from coercive psychiatry does not trump the State's obligation to decide whether he is guilty of a crime.

JethroDull, I have to assume you don't entirely know what you are talking about - and I don't mean that with any malice. Here's why, your statement is factually wrong.

It is the practice, whether good or bad (I maintain the view that it is bad) but it is what it is, the State's (or more precisely the agents of the State - the prosecuting lawyers) obligation to determine his guilt is trumped by the defendant's right to plead insanity. It is called the insanity defense because it is used by the defendant's team (the defense lawyers), it is not used by the prosecuting team.

JethroDull, you have it completely back-to-front and upside-down as to what is actually the case. The insanity defense is not pushed for by the State, the prosecution, but by the defendant's lawyers. However, since the insanity defense is consider proper it is recognized by the State as a legitimate defense. Szasz argues that it shouldn't be considered legitimate and proper.

Szasz Takes On His Critics

===

Edit: If you are comfortable with the insanity defense, which it seems you are, then in principle you should be comfortable with imagining the following scenario - an example of the insanity defense being used:

Adolf Eichmann should not be found guilty for sending thousands of Jews, homosexuals and other "undesirables" to their deaths during the Holocaust because he is mentally ill. We, his defense lawyers, claim he is not responsible for this because he is mentally ill, with that your honor, we plead "insanity" as our defense.

Then a psychiatrist testifies on the condition of mental health of the defendant, Mr Eichmann, and if he successfully convinces the judge or jury that Mr Eichmann is "insane" then Eichmann "wins" his case - he is found not guilty but he is condemned as insane for which he will be incarcerated and medicated for the rest of his life - no parole, no appeal.

Now, do you think the family members of the victims of the Holocaust would be pleased with this decision? Has justice been served? Hasn't Eichmann been absolved of his responsibility?

[JethroDull]

JethroDull, I have to assume you don't entirely know what you are talking about - and I don't mean that with any malice. Here's why, your statement is factually wrong.

It is the practice, whether good or bad (I maintain the view that it is bad) but it is what it is, the State's (or more precisely the agents of the State - the prosecuting lawyers) obligation to determine his guilt is trumped by the defendant's right to plead insanity. It is called the insanity defense because it is used by the defendant's team (the defense lawyers), it is not used by the prosecuting team.

JethroDull, you have it completely back-to-front and upside-down as to what is actually the case. The insanity defense is not pushed for by the State, the prosecution, but by the defendant's lawyers. However, since the insanity defense is consider proper it is recognized by the State as a legitimate defense. Szasz argues that it shouldn't be considered legitimate and proper.

This is why I tried to politely bow out of this thread. Looking forward to debating with you on other topics, elsewhere.