If he's too crazy to be guilty, then he's too dangerous to be freed.
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
80 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2474 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's tough. He was radicalized, largely by YouTube, from what I've read. I don't believe prison should be punitive, just rehabilitative. If he really can come to terms with his radicalization, I don't see why he can't come back to reality and contribute to society.
I would want him to be required to attend therapy and psychiatric evaluation for a while at minimum. Tendency to conspiratorial thinking is something people like that battle their whole lives.
Oh yeah, I'm definitely not advocating for him to just get let loose on the streets. Just saying he doesn't need to spend his whole life behind bars
I can agree with that. I have a friend who has a PhD in Administration of Justice, and having himself spent years in jail despite being innocent, he opened my eyes to the desperate need for prison reform (and why it works better than purely punitive prison, for most).
I think this is being blind to the scale of the issue.
The entire MAGA cult is as radicalized as this guy, some more, some less. But most probably as radicalized. There are maybe 1-3 million die-hards?
They successfully took the capitol in an attempted coup.
I'm sorry, but this sentiment of yours is misguided. He isn't a one off. He's part of a movement. We need to be considering this issue in a broader context.
So put him in prison with nothing but NPR and PBS to rehabilitate him?
It isn't tough at all, of course he needs rehab and of course he needs to be segregated from society while he's doing it.
What's tough is that there is no such system that can do that. That is to say: the problem here isn't anything to do with this particular case, and everything to do with the prison industrial complex.
Ok, and the 5-10 million other people that are as radicalized/ if not more radicalized?
DO they get a pass because they 'live in alternative reality'?
They would gas people they don't approve of. This isn't fucking around.
Not punitive??? He hit Paul in the head with a goddamn hammer. The fuck are you talking about??
Yes, he absolutely needs rehabilitation before reentering society, but just because he was radicalized by watching YouTube doesn’t mean he should be excused for attempted deadly force.
The obsession with being punitive is why we have the plurality of the world’s prisoners. Something like 1 in 4 prisoners are in the USA.
I agree but it also should be protective. He did what he did and that should probably come with a very long probation once he’s out. It’s not enough to know better, we need to trust he’s able to function in the world without going back to radicalizing content even when triggered.
That's how insanity pleas are supposed to work. You don't go free, you just get locked up in a different place, and without a date set for your release.
Yeah that’s usually how insanity works. If you want to be free asap don’t plead insanity. What could’ve been over in a decade could easily be the equivalent of life probation if you’re ever deemed sane enough to be let out
Yeah that’s usually how insanity works. If you want to be free asap don’t plead insanity. What could’ve been over in a decade could easily be the equivalent of life probation if you’re ever deemed sane enough to be let out
IANAL, but my reading of this defense is different than what I’m seeing in most of the comments here.
He isn’t simply pleading insanity. The defense is trying to avoid a guilty verdict on some particular charges with large prison sentences. The defense is claiming that he did not intend to interfere with official duties.
He’s facing two charges: attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official (which requires the intent to interfere with official duties) and assault on an immediate family member of a U.S. official (which also requires the intent to interfere with or retaliate against the official over their duties). The kidnapping charge carries a 20-year prison sentence and the assault has a 30-year term.
They’re basically saying, “yes my client committed assault and kidnapping, but not for the reason required to be found guilty of those particular charges. Therefore, he is not guilty.
It doesn’t sound like their argument holds up because, even though his reasons are crazy, they still show he intended to interfere with official duties. But this is not a “put me in an insane asylum” attempt. It’s a not-guilty (of those particular charges) attempt.
DePape told jurors Tuesday during his rambling and tear-filled testimony that he didn’t target Pelosi to prevent her from serving in Congress. He said his real intent was to reveal a sinister plot.
“I wanted to use her to expose the truth,” DePape said, testifying that he planned to wear a unicorn costume he brought to her home and interrogate Pelosi on camera about what he believes are Democratic plots against former President Trump.
This might be Trump's biggest con yet: Rile up his followers by lying to them, then when those folks act on those lies, they end up getting treated with kid gloves because of how big the lies are, and how divorced from reality it makes them.
Every word uttered by a conservative or their attorney is deception. Every word.
Here's the thing I'm curious about: If this defense is even remotely successful, and they can show that his state of mind was caused by the absolute nonsense he was consuming for news, do you think laws will change about what claims can be made without proof on the internet? Screaming "fire" on the internet and whatnot.
I just don't see how deluding yourself into believing an alternate reality is a defense. Not if you are of sound mind; which I don't think you can argue that the entire MAGA movement 'isnt of sound mind', they're easily 1:20 people in this country.
I'm pretty sure the "sound mind" thing doesn't work like that anyway. The insanity defence, for anyone who doesn't already know, is not a claim that you're too coocoo town banana pants to go to prison for crimes you have no credible defense for. The insanity plea is a claim that the defendant straight up doesn't understand, and may in fact be incapable of learning how to understand, right from wrong. They may confess immediately to a murder for instance, believing that there was no wrong in murdering, due to the severity of their own delusions.
Ok, but like, this final part:
believing that there was no wrong in murdering, due to the severity of their own delusions.
Can that not be extended to the actions of the insurrectionists on J6, or Trumps multiple attempts at a coup? If they truly believed the election was actually stolen? I'm not arguing this should be the case, but self believe to me isn't sufficient. Righteously believing yourself to be correct doesn't make you correct.
Also, I don't know that any kind of 'sound mind' or insanity argument really has any meaning when we're talking about a group of people on the order of, conservatively 1 million Americans, maybe as high as 15-25 million Americans? Some where between a half a percent and 15% of US citizens are basically, bat shit insane, when it comes to their material world view.
I for one am very glad that we protect the free speech of those that radicalized him. If we didnt do that then they might become dangerous and want to impose on the rights of others
OK, so this isn't an insanity defense, it's them arguing that the specific charges don't apply. The charges require an intent to target officials specifically for their role in government, and they argue he was targeting them because he believed they were involved in a conspiracy. So it's not the equivalent of an insanity plea, it's the equivalent of arguing that you shouldn't be charged with murder because you didn’t intend to kill someone, which would mean you should be charged with manslaughter instead.
It's still bullshit because the "conspiracy" would be one involving actions taken as a government official.
U S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson found that one defendant — who surged with the Jan. 6 mob onto the Senate floor — had such a “unique stew in his mind” that she couldn’t be sure he had any idea he was breaking the law.
These are not functioning adults and they should be forcibly kept in care facilities for the rest of their natural lives.