Loughner to plead guilty

[Scheavo]

http://news.yahoo.com/loughner-plead-guilty-arizona-shooting-spree-la-times-015020744.html?_esi=1

Jared Loughner, the man accused of killing six people and wounding then-U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, is set to plead guilty in a Tucson court on Tuesday, a person in Washington familiar with the case said.

The source confirmed that the federal government believed Loughner was now competent to stand trial and will argue that in court on Tuesday. Loughner is willing to change his plea to guilty at the previously scheduled hearing, the source said.

Wasn't sure if there'd be enough interest in this for it's own thread, might just be El Barto.

But there's something I find horribly wrong with this. Wasn't Loughner mentally unfit when he committed the crime? It seems extremely wrong to me to fix the man up after the fact, and than punish him for what he did while crazy. Am I missing something here?

[PowerSlave]

I doubt that he'll ever live outside of any kind of institution for the rest of his life so, it might not matter either way. I do see your point, though.

[Orthogonal]

Am I missing something here?

Unless the DA's position was that Loughner was some how "competent" when commiting the act, but at the time of hearing he was not "competent to stand trial".
Although, Loughner is pleading guilty, which means there is something spooking his defense to take a deal now rather than risk going to trial. Perhaps the DA knows more than they are letting on.

[PowerSlave]

I think you're reading too much into it. He's simply trying to avoid the death penalty most likely. We'll find out for sure soon enough but, I'd be willing to lay money down on it.

[Scheavo]

I don't have a problem with institutionalizing the man for life, that really might just be the best situation for everyone. But, the article says the he could face the death penalty if found guilty. I don't know the specifics of Arizona law, and how they determine if the death penalty should be applied, but it shouldn't even be a possibility, given what we know about the man.

Unless the DA's position was that Loughner was some how "competent" when commiting the act, but at the time of hearing he was not "competent to stand trial".

Unless the arresting officers gave Loughner a massive amount of acid, and he quickly developed schizophrenia, this is just a dead end.

[El Barto]

Not sure what to make of this.  There's definitely a helluva lot wrong with the situation.  You certainly shouldn't be able to medicate somebody to make them sane enough to mainline.  There's also a big problem with the way sanity is handled here.  Like I've said before, you don't always get to hang the bad guy.  At the same time, he was going to get the Hinkley treatment.  They were going to keep him locked away forever.  I don't think the end result here is going to be any different.  Now he'll get the Unabomber treatment.  It's not like they're going to throw his crazy ass in with the other killers.  I guess my biggest problem is that now he's just going to go down as a murderer and lifer now.  I'd have rather his legacy was that of crazy fuck in need of serious mental health.  Perhaps some progress might have come from that.  None comes from a guilty plea.

There is the possibility that the judge doesn't accept his plea.  In the past he was declared incompetent to stand trial.  Seems odd that he's suddenly competent to plead guilty now. 

I don't have a problem with institutionalizing the man for life, that really might just be the best situation for everyone. But, the article says the he could face the death penalty if found guilty. I don't know the specifics of Arizona law, and how they determine if the death penalty should be applied, but it shouldn't even be a possibility, given what we know about the man.

Right now he's being charged with the federal crime.  That's why he'll wind up in the Colorado ADMAX.  It appears that the Hinkley thing really pissed some people off, so Congress made an insanity defense a lost cause.  It's really only useful as a mitigating factor in the sentencing phase.

Should he be tried in Arizona, there's no such thing as not guilty due to insanity.  They can only find you guilty but insane, which defers your prison sentence until you're cured. 

Pretty much bullshit on all counts, but that's what we get for living in a society with such a giant hard-on for revenge. 

[ReaPsTA]

but that's what we get for living in a society with such a giant hard-on for revenge.

It's not about revenge.  It's not like Fight Club, where Tyler Durden was literally a separate entity in Ed Norton's mind.  Loughner knew what he was doing.  He's responsible for his actions - period - whatever the reasons are.  If his being insane is a mitigating circumstance, then fine.  But there's a reason we stopped letting people talk because of it.

[El Barto]

I never saw Fight Club, but that's nonsense anyway.  You don't punish people who are incapable of reason.  Same reason we don't execute 12 year olds.

[ReaPsTA]

I never saw Fight Club, but that's nonsense anyway.  You don't punish people who are incapable of reason.  Same reason we don't execute 12 year olds.

Where's the line then where you hold people responsible for their actions?

You can't have a society that tells people your actions are out of your control.  This is why anti-depressants are given out like candy to people who want them.

[Adami]

I never saw Fight Club, but that's nonsense anyway.  You don't punish people who are incapable of reason.  Same reason we don't execute 12 year olds.

Where's the line then where you hold people responsible for their actions?

You can't have a society that tells people your actions are out of your control.  This is why anti-depressants are given out like candy to people who want them.

I say this knowing nothing about this case other than apparently some guy shot some people. But being depressed, you're still in control of your actions. However if you're psychotic or possibly even have D.I.D., then you might not be so in control, and anti-depressants don't do much for that.

[El Barto]

@Adami: He's schizophrenic, and I don't think there's anybody that disputes that. 

I never saw Fight Club, but that's nonsense anyway.  You don't punish people who are incapable of reason.  Same reason we don't execute 12 year olds.

Where's the line then where you hold people responsible for their actions?

You can't have a society that tells people your actions are out of your control.  This is why anti-depressants are given out like candy to people who want them.

Different jurisdictions have different definitions, most of which are reasonable.  The most widely accepted definition of sanity is the ability to distinguish right from wrong actions.  Some also allow for a person being unable to control themselves. 

As for where to draw the line, I think both of those criteria work.  Like I said, crazy people don't choose to be crazy.  This guy went off his nut, and at that point I don't think he stood any chance of preventing this outcome.  Keeping him away from the rest of us is a no-brainer, but I don't think there's any disputing that.  The question is whether or not he should be made miserable for the rest of his life as punishment for something that he had no control over.  I don't think he should be.

[Adami]

@Adami: He's schizophrenic, and I don't think there's anybody that disputes that. 

Ah, fair enough. Like I said, I know nothing about the case.

[Scheavo]

You can't have a society that tells people your actions are out of your control. 

That has nothing to do with this case. What is being suggested, is that people who are schizophrenic and unable to control their actions shouldn't be held accountable for their action's. This is hardly a new idea. Plato talked about it in the Republic. 

[Adami]

Being diagnosed Schizophrenic doesn't mean you never have any control over anything you do. A person can be schizophrenic and not be actively psychotic. In fact, you can be schizophrenic and be a guy who likes to murder people.

Not saying it's the case with this guy. He may have in fact been actively psychotic during the time in question, but simply being labeled schizophrenic isn't a get out of jail free card.

[El Barto]

Being diagnosed Schizophrenic doesn't mean you never have any control over anything you do. A person can be schizophrenic and not be actively psychotic. In fact, you can be schizophrenic and be a guy who likes to murder people.

Not saying it's the case with this guy. He may have in fact been actively psychotic during the time in question, but simply being labeled schizophrenic isn't a get out of jail free card.

I was curious about that.  Good to know.

I can tell you that in this case there was a good deal of debate about forcibly medicating him.  Despite conflicted rulings by the courts, they're pumping him full of anti-psychotics to try and keep him and the people around him safe.  In this case, it's actually the state making the case that he's psychotic. 

[Scheavo]

Being diagnosed Schizophrenic doesn't mean you never have any control over anything you do. A person can be schizophrenic and not be actively psychotic. In fact, you can be schizophrenic and be a guy who likes to murder people.

Not saying it's the case with this guy. He may have in fact been actively psychotic during the time in question, but simply being labeled schizophrenic isn't a get out of jail free card.

I guess I can see how the "and cant' control their actions" could imply that, but I just meant schizophrenics who can't control their actions. Loughner, by all accounts, has a lot of issues.

So apparently, Loughner has a plea deal where he'll plead guilty, and get life in prison.

[El Barto]

So apparently, Loughner has a plea deal where he'll plead guilty, and get life in prison.

That's really the only way it makes sense (at least as far as it makes any sense at all).  It still remains to be seen whether or not Arizona will move forward with separate charges.  Normally I'd suspect not.  However, this is Arizona we're talking about. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to wrangle a death sentence out of this. 

[ohgar]

"Increased coverage gives the impression that the [insanity] defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_guilty_only_by_reason_of_insanity#Usage_and_success_rate

Yep, it's just like antidepressants.