?
"Kurt Ullman" wrote

That is a problem as they should be the same. Mentally ill people that
do
horrific crimes should not be put back into society. The only difference
is
where they spend their time.

IF the crime is the result of the mental illness why not? Get them
treated, the mental illness goes away and so does the reason for the
incarceration. Purest form of rehab in this context.

In the pure form, you are correct. There are, unfortunately, problems with
the practical application. We don't really have good capability to decide
when and if a person is cured, or even if a person was mentally ill when
committing a particular crime of it if was just used as an excuse to stay
out of jail. "Your honor, I was mentally ill when I robbed those ten banks,
but now I feel cured. Can I go home?"




Federally the standard is outlined in the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to
prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," that "at the time of the
commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a
result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate
the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" (18 U.S.C. §
17). This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from
wrong" standard.



Also, the use of this defense is not all that frequent. According
to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of
all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those
cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously
diagnosed with mental illness.

I wonder if that success rate is due to the jurors being convinced (or not)
or the result of professional evaluation. Of the 90%, I'd guess that
erratic behavior or really serious deviation from the norm make it easier to
believe.



Many states now have a 3rd option of guilty but mentally ill. They
serve a "normal" sentence in a mental institution until better and
then transferred to a regular prison.
The definitions aren't the same because the needs aren't the same.
The medical definition (s), are for purposes of diagnosis and treatment.
The legal definition for holding people responsible for their criminal
actions. There is a certain (very small area) where the two overlap.

That can be a difficult area. Mental illness in our society is not
acceptable. We have the utmost sympathy for patients with physical
diseases, but we generally want to take anyone with any mental problem and
put them away out of site.

Getting back to the original premise of sprinklers saving lives, if a person
wants to kill another, or themselves, a sprinkler system is not going to
stop them. Anyone engaging in such an activity to kill their child has
mental problems and should be dealt with accordingly. It may be possible
that person can be returned to society to be a productive member with no
desire to kill anyone else.