tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3760016150045249987..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Committee to consider recording interrogations, regulating graffiti, Texas' insane insanity defense and moreGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-55054736070077991842013-04-03T00:43:03.690-05:002013-04-03T00:43:03.690-05:00Michael, here in the UK all interviews are recorde...Michael, here in the UK all interviews are recorded and back-seat confessions are not accepted in court without corroboration. However, silence is now not seen as an innocence defence; when IRA members were being tried, guidance to the courts was changed and now if you stay silent it is assumed that you are not innocent (which is not the same as being guilty). So you could use the two remedies together - recording and silence not implying innocence.sunray's wenchhttp://lookingforthecabinbythelake.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41450620857872085982013-04-02T18:02:59.873-05:002013-04-02T18:02:59.873-05:00I think Mike has a good point about telling teh ju...I think Mike has a good point about telling teh jury what will happen when a defendant is found NGBRI. It seems odd that we trust them to decide whether a person lives or dies but we can't trust them with that information. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-56322669306074733672013-04-02T08:00:56.643-05:002013-04-02T08:00:56.643-05:007:02 - NGBRI stands for not guilty by reason of in...7:02 - NGBRI stands for not guilty by reason of insanity. That's the term I've heard in court every time I've seen an insanity defense used and the times that I myself have used an insanity defense. That's the term I've seen in court's charges. I totally agree with you that REAL money needs to be committed to mental health treatment. Without increased funding, everything else is just window dressing. Mike Howardhttp://www.mikehowardlaw.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31822297170861393112013-04-02T07:51:40.644-05:002013-04-02T07:51:40.644-05:00Anon. 2:00AM is exactly right. Texas is notorious...Anon. 2:00AM is exactly right. Texas is notorious for not funding treatment and prevention programs. The budget writers are proposing adding a few million, moving Texas all the way from 49th to 47th in funds allocated to mental health. Hope they don't break their arms patting themselves on the back.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341616417168200955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-29556143901179576202013-04-02T07:02:47.078-05:002013-04-02T07:02:47.078-05:00First of all , in Texas, the term is NGRI, not NGB...First of all , in Texas, the term is NGRI, not NGBRI.<br /><br />Some states have a statute that allows a Guilty but Insane verdict. This, of course, means that the person was aware of what they were doing at the time. Quite possible, if you actually know people who are certifially "insane".<br /><br />No matter what the Lege decides, if money is not put toward facilities (jails, state hospitals, MHMR centers) that provide treatment for those who are mentally ill, then people will still slip through the cracks and devastating crimes will still occur.<br />The State does not need cuts to treatment programs or cuts to the workers (cuts in pay, cuts in healthcare, cuts in retirement) who put their own health and lives in danger to help those with mental illness. <br /><br />Newspaper headlines cry out when people are murdered, children are injured because of child abuse, and "crazy" people are let loose to wander the streets, however, no one wants to spend "their" tax dollars to make things better.<br />Private corporations have sprung up, but are they a solution? Look at their inspections records, worse than the State facilities.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-52740457985849170152013-04-02T05:49:32.781-05:002013-04-02T05:49:32.781-05:00What many have no clue about is that some individu...What many have no clue about is that some individuals will not talk (during an interview or interrogation) w/ LE knowing they are being recorded. It's not that LE doesn't want the interview reordered, they do want to record. Recording is a best practice.<br /><br />The Feds prefer not to record when local, county, and state prefer to record. Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68657802973389003072013-04-02T00:03:19.701-05:002013-04-02T00:03:19.701-05:00There is only one reason NOT to record interrogati...There is only one reason NOT to record interrogations: those doing the interrogation are doing so in a manner that is at best dubious and at worst, illegal.sunray's wenchhttp://lookingforthecabinbythelake.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-64410366107350492942013-04-01T17:56:01.739-05:002013-04-01T17:56:01.739-05:00Fully agreed 2:39. If a person is not thinking or ...Fully agreed 2:39. If a person is not thinking or acting rationally, due to a severe mental disease or defect they truly and honestly believe the killed a person in bona fide self defense, they would be NGBRI. The problem here, however, is getting a jury to follow through with the law in spite of their preconceived fears, biases, and prejudices. If we give them all the facts (by allowing the parties at trial to fully and honestly explain how the system works after an NGBRI verdict) we'd probably get more NGBRI verdicts. That would be the system working much better. Right now the system doesn't trust the jury to have all the facts, which is a travesty, IMHO.Mike Howardhttp://www.mikehowardlaw.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67854189418030174032013-04-01T14:39:34.710-05:002013-04-01T14:39:34.710-05:00A lot of people simply don't understand mental...A lot of people simply don't understand mental illness. A person who is experiencing psychosis (delusions or hallucinations) is functioning in a different reality. Those delusions or hallucinations are as real to them as anything is to your or me. They are incapable of acting or thinking rationally. If you never lived with it up close, its hard to imagine. Try this: Suppose that without your knowledge someone gave you a drug that made you hallucinate. Say that drug made you believe that someone was coming at you with a weapon and was going to kill you. To you, what you are experiencing seems completely real. So, you kill the person in what you believe to be self-defense. What consequences should you face? We need to be focusing on treatment and prevention. We need to develop better methods to deal with mental illness. But, instead we'd rather spend the money on prisons. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-59326544440590204162013-04-01T10:44:00.892-05:002013-04-01T10:44:00.892-05:00That's a really good point, Mike, about what t...That's a really good point, Mike, about what the jury is told. That's probably the biggest factor preventing NGBRI from being applied in cases like Thomas'.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-83520823182068684962013-04-01T10:12:24.559-05:002013-04-01T10:12:24.559-05:00What exactly would "appreciate" mean in ...What exactly would "appreciate" mean in terms of the insanity defense bill? It's not currently defined in the general definitions section of the Penal Code or in the culpability section. This would create an entirely new mens rea (legal mental state)... Sounds like a bad idea to me. <br /><br />I'm not sure what practical difference changing "wrong" (how it is in the current insanity section) to "legally or morally wrong" will make. In theory this would allow the defense to achieve a "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGBRI) verdict easier (by proving that he either didn't appreciate his conduct was legally wrong or didn't appreciate his conduct was morally wrong). I think in practice it wouldn't make an ounce of a difference. <br /><br />Personally, IMO if you want to amend Texas' insanity defense to make more even and fairly administered, remove the requirement that the court, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney cannot tell the jury what happens if they find someone NGBRI. That's the single worst part of the law on insanity. In practice, jurors can't be told that someone doesn't just get out of jail and walk amongst the law-abiding after a finding of NGBRI. That fear overrides reason and evidence; most jurors simply cannot live with the worry that they might be letting a dangerous and deranged person loose on society. The law reinforces that fear by requiring the parties involved to keep the jurors ignorant of the process, thereby playing to their fears. Hell, crafty prosecutors hint (without saying directly) that a person will walk, underlying that fear even more. <br /><br />If people knew that defendants found NGBRI would be locked away in a secure mental health facility and would receive treatment until their are deemed by trained professionals to no longer be a threat (if that ever happens), they'd be more likely to listen to an insanity plea and would be more likely to decide such matters with logic rather than fear.Mike Howardhttp://www.mikehowardlaw.comnoreply@blogger.com