Judge: Loughner can be made mentally fit for trial

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek If you were the parent of the 9-year old girl killed by the schizophrenic, would you feel he should not be held responsible for her death because he wasn't taking his meds?

Yes, I would. Because he was not in his right mind and was undiagnosed with a horrible disorder. You'd want him dead too?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Yes, I would. Because he was not in his right mind and was undiagnosed with a horrible disorder.

He also committed a horrible act. He had been advised to seek mental health before, but chose not to. Our justice system has an obligation to ensure, to the best of their ability, that he cannot commit similarly horrible acts in the future.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior You'd want him dead too?

Is that what I said?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek He also committed a horrible act. He had been advised to seek mental health before, but chose not to. Our justice system has an obligation to ensure, to the best of their ability, that he cannot commit similarly horrible acts in the future. Is that what I said?

No, which is why I am asking you...because I agreed with he needs to be in a mental institution then you later asked me if I don't feel he should be held responsible..?

Anyways, they don't put crazy people to death because they slipped through the cracks.

As for being advised to seek treatment...have you ever dealt with a schizophrenic person? This is not a contusion on his arm that began to look serious. If you tell them they are schizophrenic, they don't exactly nod and agree with you. This is why most of them are under care - someone administers the meds to them or makes sure they are medicated.

IMO, he should have received treatment as soon as the signs showed in school. Not like the school shrinks deal with anything more than dating problems and mild depression anyways. That's why there was all this talk when the story broke about how the system failed him. It did. His parents failed him too. I bet Gabby Giffords would agree also. There seems to be a glaring lack of understanding of mental illness in general.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior No, which is why I am asking you...because I agreed with he needs to be in a mental institution then you later asked me if I don't feel he should be held responsible..?

You also said he should be released back into society if the medicine gets his condition under control. I disagree because schizophrenics are prone to stop taking their medicine when they are out on their own, which leads to their condition returning and Loughner again being a danger to society. Even though he is currently in prison under close supervision, the guards still have to forcibly give him medication. There is no reason to think he would stay on his medication if released. I know you said his release should be several years from now. Until then, I believe he should be kept in prison or a mental institute until it can be determined if the meds will get his condition under control.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Anyways, they don't put crazy people to death because they slipped through the cracks.

Being held responsible doesn't necessarily mean receiving the death penalty. If the medicine brings him to a point where he is competent to stand trial, then he should be given a trial and face the charges against him. It's the prosecutions job to convince the jury he should be put away for life (or killed) and it is the job of the defense to point out his mental condition at the time, the remorse he claims to feel and other factors that might make the jury more sympathetic. Personally, I think he should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or in a mental institute.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior As for being advised to seek treatment...have you ever dealt with a schizophrenic person? This is not a contusion on his arm that began to look serious. If you tell them they are schizophrenic, they don't exactly nod and agree with you. This is why most of them are under care - someone administers the meds to them or makes sure they are medicated. IMO, he should have received treatment as soon as the signs showed in school. Not like the school shrinks deal with anything more than dating problems and mild depression anyways. That's why there was all this talk when the story broke about how the system failed him. It did. His parents failed him too. I bet Gabby Giffords would agree also. There seems to be a glaring lack of understanding of mental illness in general.

I haven't worked with (or dealt with) schizophrenics personally, but I have researched a number of case studies (for assignments and out of personal interest). I understand that schizophrenics generally don't accept or acknowledge their condition and often refuse to take their meds unless forced to. That is the main reason I feel Loughner should not be free in society again. He will always present a danger to society.

Yes, he should have received treatment years ago, but he and his parents had another opportunity to seek treatment when his college said he couldn't come back until cleared by a psychologist that he no longer represented a threat to others. Instead of seeking treatment, Loughner decided to drop out of school. Since he was over 21, his parents couldn't force him to seek treatment at that time either.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek You also said he should be released back into society if the medicine gets his condition under control. I disagree because schizophrenics are prone to stop taking their medicine when they are out on their own, which leads to their condition returning and Loughner again being a danger to society. Even though he is currently in prison under close supervision, the guards still have to forcibly give him medication. There is no reason to think he would stay on his medication if released. I know you said his release should be several years from now. Until then, I believe he should be kept in prison or a mental institute until it can be determined if the meds will get his condition under control.

Schizophrenics all over the place are out free. Some are violent some are not. But they are usually looked after by a family member, or if not, the state supplies a provider to make sure they are taking their meds. The rest is basically what I said - although I would never put him amongst regualr prisoners.

Being held responsible doesn't necessarily mean receiving the death penalty. If the medicine brings him to a point where he is competent to stand trial, then he should be given a trial and face the charges against him. It's the prosecutions job to convince the jury he should be put away for life (or killed) and it is the job of the defense to point out his mental condition at the time, the remorse he claims to feel and other factors that might make the jury more sympathetic. Personally, I think he should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or in a mental institute.

Of course it doesn't mean that, but you chimed in when I was speaking to LOA about putting him to death, directly quoting my statement that mentions it, is all. Thus my question and thus the later confusion on your stance. You can see how it might make me ask you.

Up there you said he should be held until it is determined if his condition can be controlled via meds (which of course, it can). Down here you say he should be locked away for life. Anyways, would you really condemn your son to such a fate? A few years of help sure, but life in a prison cell with other criminals and murderers because you and the school failed to read the signs that your kid was mentally ill?

I haven't worked with (or dealt with) schizophrenics personally, but I have researched a number of case studies (for assignments and out of personal interest). I understand that schizophrenics generally don't accept or acknowledge their condition and often refuse to take their meds unless forced to. That is the main reason I feel Loughner should not be free in society again. He will always present a danger to society. Yes, he should have received treatment years ago, but he and his parents had another opportunity to seek treatment when his college said he couldn't come back until cleared by a psychologist that he no longer represented a threat to others. Instead of seeking treatment, Loughner decided to drop out of school. Since he was over 21, his parents couldn't force him to seek treatment at that time either.

But so do all schizophrenics represent a threat potentially. And yet they live in our neighbourhoods. You understand that most people with schizophrenia do not live out their lives in a mental hospital, right? Just maybe an initial stay, or if they go nuts and try to harm themselves or others - then out again when condition is stable.

Of course he dropped out of school. Surprised he was in there undiagnosed as long as he was. Could you imagine his unstable mind in that classroom? And again, I find it hard to blame anyone suffering with this condition for not diagnosing themselves and seeking treatment. The school missed alot here. The parents did too. The kid cannot be faulted for not knowing hes schizo. Like an autistic kids doesn't know he's autistic. They just...are.

[Cerek]

You asked LOA how he would feel if he were the parent of the schizophrenic. I simply took the flip side of the question and asked how you would feel if you were the parent of one of the victims. I didn't realize that would confuse you on my stance since I had already stated Loughner should be kept in a prison or mental institute.

Yes, I realize many schizophrenics are walking around free. That's because they have not committed a horrible act like Loughner did. Several people did miss the signs, but in the end, Loughner still has to accept responsibility for his actions.

I did say he should be held until it can be determined if his condition can be controlled by meds. Once that point is reached, then he should go to trial to face the charges against him, since he will be competent to understand the charges and the severity of his actions. Personally, I feel that he should be found guilty and be locked up for life because he has proven how dangerous he can be when left in society. That's why I would not make a good juror in this case.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek You asked LOA how he would feel if he were the parent of the schizophrenic. I simply took the flip side of the question and asked how you would feel if you were the parent of one of the victims. I didn't realize that would confuse you on my stance since I had already stated Loughner should be kept in a prison or mental institute..

Well I used the word "executed" in the sentence you quoted, was not sure which part you were responding to. It's okay, I am clear now.

Originally Posted by Cerek Yes, I realize many schizophrenics are walking around free. That's because they have not committed a horrible act like Loughner did. Several people did miss the signs, but in the end, Loughner still has to accept responsibility for his actions. .

Is that usually how these cases end up being viewed, is my real question to anyone who knows the drill. Does the state place sole responsibility on a mentally ill person, or do they get a pass in comparison to a competent criminal - even if they commit murder.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Is that usually how these cases end up being viewed, is my real question to anyone who knows the drill. Does the state place sole responsibility on a mentally ill person, or do they get a pass in comparison to a competent criminal - even if they commit murder.

It's hard to say and, I would imagine, it is handled on a case-by-case basis.
Competency to stand trail is a big issue and, right now, Loughner doesn't meet that standard. So a trial at this point would be unfair to him because the court doesn't believe he can fully understand the consequences of his actions or the possible punishment he might receive for those actions. Thus, the attempt to get his condition controlled by medication so he reaches a point where the doctors and judge can determine he does fully understand the charges against him and the possible consequences he may face for his actions.

IF he (and others) reach a point where they are determined to be competent enough to stand trial, then they would have a court date scheduled and either hire or be assigned a defense attorney. Just because his case may go to trial doesn't necessarily mean he will be found guilty. The burden will be on his defense lawyer to convince the juror Loughner could not control his actions when they occurred. But he will also have to convince the jury that such an event will NOT occur again if Loughner is allowed to go free. The lawyer will likely have to show that there IS a solid and dependable support system in place to monitor Loughner and make sure he stays on his medication. Given the parents history, I'm not sure they will make the best Guardians in this case. It will likely require a promise of intervention from a doctor, home agency or a mental health facility. The public (and the court) will want an absolute assurance (as much as possible) that Loughner will not present a threat to himself or others IF he is allowed to return to society. So, going to trial is part of him accepting the responsibility for his actions.

The other part is understanding what he did, recognizing the heinous nature of his actions, and expressing sincere remorse (which he seems to be doing). His condition won't give him a total pass because drunk drivers are still held accountable for their actions behind the wheel, as are drug users. While it isn't exactly the same, a good prosecutor would likely argue that addiction is a recognized disease that the person cannot control on their own. If we hold drunks and addicts responsible for their actions, the same standard should apply to those with other illnesses.

All of this is conjecture on my part, of course. TL could answer more knowledgeably since his wife actually works criminal cases.

So, when I say Loughner should be held accountable for his actions, I mean he should have to stand trial for what he did. Then the burden falls on the prosecution and the defense to determine the outcome and long-term consequences of Loughner's actions. Since he is schizophrenic, I can't really see him getting the Death Penalty, even in Texas. Most likely, the prosecution would argue for life in prison. The defense, of course, will either try to prove he is NOT a threat anymore OR try to have him serve his time in a mental institute where his condition could be monitored and controlled.

[SpiritWarrior]

While I feel for the families who lost people, I also have compassion for him, I really do.

I see what you're saying about competency, and realize how important it is in legal terms. But again, to me I immediately think it's all null & void because he was "off his head" with a medical condition beyond his control. Like even if he says "I know what I did"...what difference does it make if he was basically clinically insane then and is not now?

As you have acknowledged, being drunk is different. I would say completely different as I debated the other day with a friend of mine. You are not insane before you drink, and make the conscious choice to get drunk. This is the factor here that grants him a pass. He was almost "perpetually drunk" going by that example. Without any knowledge that he was "drunk", maybe even with voices reassuring him that he was normal (quite common with Schizo). A drunk person who kills someone might get off with manslaughter, but they were completely sane and sober 3 hours earlier so they are punished for making bad choices to begin with. Can we really say with certainty that we could control this kinda taboo psychological ailment without meds? I can't.

IDK. It just disturbs me when I read these stories of how the prosecution are going after him like attack dogs. I wonder what Gabby Giffords would say about these people "fighting her corner". I'd like to think she would forgive his actions as not his own in a sense.
Again, maybe I am completely naive. Even speaking of dogs, I am the kind of person that thinks a kid deserves a bite from a dog if they are torturing them, rather than saying the animal should be euthanized. Of course, an aggressive dog is another issue and should be kept away from people. But a retaliatory nip is fair game in my book. If you scare an animal to the point where it feels the need to defend itself, then you get what you asked for. Many disagree.

[robertthebard]

My ex-wife is Schizo, and when she thinks her medication has cured her, she quits taking it. Although she's not dangerous to others, she can be a danger to herself, and frankly, I have no reason to believe the disease works any different from case to case. In other words, there would be no time, barring finding an actual cure for the condition, that he would be fit to be in society, and should, therefore, be held for the rest of his natural life. There should be no question of a trial at a later date, however. If the defence has proven that he was incompetent to stand trial at the time of the offence, and at the preliminary hearing, then his freedom is forfeit, or should be.