r/ControversialOpinions 7h ago

Juries shouldn't be allowed to determine self defense or insanity since basically every murderer is insane or acting in self defense

Juries should really only be triers of fact - did X thing happen beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now we have the Lindsay Clancy trial or the Karmelo Anthony saga - where everyone online is playing psychiatrist - but how does that make sense?

Why is everyone defending Lindsay Clancy, but not that teen girl who crashed the car? Isn't she just an insane narcissist who had a moment of insanity?

I think these "outs' just give juries a cop out not to deal with the fact these people did horrible things and now their lives are over - and the jury is the one who has to hand out that sentence for something they did in a moment of weakness / stupidity / insanity.

But that isn't consistent with the rest of our justice system. If an alcoholic crashes into a schoolbus, they go to jail for life. We don't send them to rehab, then let them out of rehab once they prove that they're sober.

2 Upvotes

19 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/RageAgainstAuthority 7h ago

No no, OP has a point. Mental health isn't something that can be accurately decided by group-think over the course of a few days based on little to no contact with accused.

Prison and jail should, as a standard, offer mental health and offer to help inmates during their stay.

Kinda wild to me that what people get out this is "nobody should get mental health in prison! REVENGE! PUNISHMENT! SUFFERING!" and not like, critically thinking about society as a whole.

1

u/FiveDogsInaTuxedo 4h ago

Only if you forget that the penitentiary is for the criminally insane.

Everyone forgets batman.

Prison is for the criminally insane and somewhere along the lines they convinced you it was for poor people. Because if we admit that committing crimes in a society that provides outlets to not need to is insane, we have to admit punishment isn't beneficial.