Has Jared Loughner essentially plead "guilty by reason of newly acquired sanity"?

[MNBrewer]

I don't quite get how, after being forcibly medicated in order to make him competent to stand trial, he can competently plead guilty to something he did while incompetent. He's now sane enough for trial, which proves he wasn't before medication.... so now the Judge can accept a guilty plea? What's the legal basis for this? I'm confused.

[originalpckelly]

1. We live in a vicious and crazy nation.

The justice system is a reflection of the whims of politicians who serve the people. Sadly most people couldn't give a shit to think about these kinds of situations.

Sadder still, few of them realize that they could be in the same situation one day.

[MNBrewer]

2. This seems to be a case where at least 3? things are intersecting

1. Arizona's blood-lust for punishing people with the death penalty
2. Jared Loughner's sincere remorse (now that he's medicated) for what he did (while un-medicated)
3. Lack of conscience on the part of the judge who is willing to allow a person to plead guilty to a crime that he was obviously not "guilty" of, in order to avoid the posse (I mean "jury&quot sending him to the electric chair.

[Ptah]

5. Arizona's blood-lust? WTF?

[MNBrewer]

10. Does it not have a death penalty?

[Ptah]

11. It's a Federal Court. Not state.

[Puregonzo1188]

3. He's obviously mentally ill. While many are upset he escaped the death penalty I find the whole plea

deal pretty sick for other reasons.

While I understand the pain of the victim's and their families I also feel somewhat bad for Lougher who was clearly ill and never got the help he deserved. I wish he would get actual help as opposed to just being another person locked up in the largest penal colony on earth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. This is not that unusual

the bad ones are the ones where they medicate until they are competent to face the death penalty.

In this case he will probably be given life and the "system" will have him serve it at a psychiatric institution, He will have to be medicated for the rest of his life.

[kestrel91316]

6. I HATE the way this works. Yes, we medicate them until they are

sane enough to qualify for prosecution, then we try them for things they did while insane and largely unable to control their thoughts or behavior.

It's sick and cruel. I support the idea of "guilty but insane", followed by protective custody in a lockdown mental facility. RUN HUMANELY, of course.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. It is not just about medication.

They are schooled on the justice system, and the roles of the players. The evaluation and conclusion inquires whether they understand the proceedings against them and are able to assist in their own defense. They test their comprehension, memory, etc.

Schizophrenia does not make one insane necessarily. Nor does it make them incompetent. Most people with schizophrenia do not murder. Medication helps those with schizophrenia.

Competency and insanity are two separate, distinct issues with different elements.

[Johonny]

8. there was a nice thread on this yesterday

Two DU posters that are lawyers explained the process and what they were and weren't doing and how the legal system works on this matter. If you do a site google search you'll probably find it. (upper right) I has really good walk through of the process. Basically the first question is do you understand the working of the court to have a fair trial, the second did you understand right or wrong. These are independent evaluations, one takes place before a trial and says a trial can or can't take place fairly with you understanding the charges against you etc..., one is a defense motion inside the trial. Basically post Reagan assassination it is really hard to plead insanity and win and it appears his lawyers did not feel based on the evaluation of their client by doctors and their client that he would win a trial. Without knowing what his lawyers know, it is hard to fault their work. Either way try to find the other thread because the real lawyers give a better description of exactly what is going on.

[SidDithers]

9. Yup...

Here's the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021088365

jberryhill and msanthrope did a nice job of explaining how it works.

ETA: Here's one post from jberryhill that's pretty clear

1. "Insanity" as a defense to committing a crime addresses the state of mind and moral reasoning capability of the accused at the time the crime was committed.

2. "Competent to stand trial" is a question about whether the accused is able to comprehend the charges against him/her and participate in defense of the case.

These two things are independent and unrelated.

Regardless of whether you were insane at the time of the crime, or incompetent to stand trial at some earlier time, what matters at any given stage of the criminal process is whether, now, you are competent to stand trial or enter a plea. You may be determined to be incompetent at some point in time, and the usual course is for you to receive treatment until such time as you are competent. But that has nothing to do with whatever bearing your state of mind at the time of the alleged crime may have on whatever plea you enter.

An untreated full-blown schizo might be incompetent to stand trial or enter a plea, but may very well become competent in the course of treatment for that condition.

Sid