Comments by "Johanna S. L. Brushane" (@johannas.l.brushane2518) on "Absolute Crime" channel.

  1. Why though? You sort of present a strawman argument for what seem to be a misconception of what "insane" is and what a "not guilty" decision is in the legal context? And you want the misguided Mr Smith to decide the scope of a definition used by specific ranges of professions (law and psychiatric field)? A finding that someone is legally insane is NOT eqvivalent to them being found "innocent". Just as if the evidence for a sane person don't reach to "beyond a reasonable doubt" only reach "not guilty". Legally insane usually mean that they are in some sort of psychosis (as you allude to). It is when they are so low in situational awareness they fail the lowest degree of culpability. What is measured is "intent" and "intent" in the legal meaning does NOT translate to purpose, that they have done some amount of planning but rather awareness, insight of a situation and the consequence of an action. For instance: it is generally concluded that people in general are aware that a person might die if you hit them with somewhat force with a hard object to their head or other areas and amount of the body. In general people are expected to have a situational awareness of not necessary a medical degree about anatomy of how lifethreathening some wounds may be to humans, maybe on the level of someone around the age nine learn in biology. Most people having been found guilty and in prison have some mental disorder or illness so mental illness in general is not a hindrance to be found guilty and sentenced to jail (even if you frequently can see Mr Smith being upset because his misguided belief that courts let go of a criminal because "they had a crappy childhood and everyone had somewhat crappy childhood" while the decision that Mr Smith never actually read is based in evidence not being enough). But typically they (who fail the intent test and declared legally insane in that situation) are sent to mental care, what might be needed is perhaps hurdles for releasing them. In case they tend to be repeating their actions and thus are a danger to society, not complying with treatment, failing to take their medication when let out of the medical facility. Neither the legal system nor the psychiatric system do view "insanity plea" and "mental illness" as eqvivalent, why should the legal system change because many people "in general" who may have no insight in neither law nor psychiatry are misguided (or delusional) about the terms?
    3
  2. ​ @ruthasksquestions It would depend on description of the deed. It typically imply the intent/culpability factor. A person may have been killed but reasonably only a legally sane (sufficiently situational cognitive awareness) could be given decision of murder, manslaughter etc since these definitions imply the test of intention hurdles so to say.
    1
  3. The difference between "insane" and "mental illness" is a difference of severity, grade of the art of cognitive insufficiency at play I would say.
    1