Yes?

If not, a lot of people are not taking advantage of the "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea.

There’s a third option here as to why people don’t get to successfully plead insanity

I'm talking about those who don't even try it. I'm under the impression that very few people try that plea. Can't say I've researched it though, and you likely have more experience with murderers than I do, so I'll just say I disagree that most murderers are clinically insane.

So you think sane people murder other sane people

There definitely needs to be prison reform in the US, but the concept of close most of the prisons and only house rapists (or do they get a pass, too?) and murderers seems like a good way to diminish the quality of other people's lives while enhancing the lives of criminals.


Using the legal standard of one being aware that one is committing murder and that the act of murder has legal consequences because it is wrong, then I'd say yeah - sane people murder other sane people all the time.

If we go by your grade school definition of, "Well, anyone that would murder someone is insane," then no.

Definitely some profound misunderstandings about how crime works ITT.

Why don’t we use dsm 4 or 5?

I do enjoy your musings, PW. I sometimes wonder what it would be like to see the world through your eyes.

Logic is a beautiful thing

Yes, yes, it is.

Not really. I see people proposing fixing one half without addressing the other half and vice versa.

Here's one half: jails are too full, so let's change the criminal classification of shoplifting. That's great and everything, but now one can get a job of shoplifting amounts that don't hit the threshold of a felony. Big stores are worried about liability, so they instruct security to just let them go.

While it has achieved its goal of reducing jail populations, it has also let criminals know they just can walk into a store and grab whatever they want under the felony amount. Many stores in those cities have closed their doors. But I guess old ladies should be buying their milk online to begin with.

Seeing as no one does anything, this has led to more serious teams smashing and grabbing hundreds of thousands of dollars because they know security is told to not intervene.


Because insanity is not defined in the DSM.

I was more referring to the motivations of people committing crime, the way prison life works, the fact that criminals, even murderers, are not ipso facto all mentally ill, and the fact that making punishments for minor crimes more draconian than they already are is not a solution to anything. I wasn't referring to anything you posted.

Oh, and also the difference between "insane" and "legally insane".

Ok, great, I'm a psychiatrist and so know those books pretty well. Murder and prison violence are most of the time not related to mental illness.

In the last few years there has been a lot of "reform" to address this in the US justice system. Punishments for minor crimes has been reduced dramatically (with the notable exception of the Jan 6th protestors). Does it appear to you this is working out?

It is one thing to make a strong statement like the highlighted. But it should be followed by actual evidence; and most of the evidence I see points the other way.

Read "minor crimes" as "dealing small amounts of drugs" if that helps. I'm not trying to get drawn into a debate about whatever that larceny/grand larceny reform thing was in Cali.

Why is the incarceration rate in America sky high compared to Europe? Are Americans innately just so much more criminal?

The "reforms" in Cali and many other blue states were much more sweeping than that, but fair enough.

It certainly doesn't appear to me that decriminalizing drug dealing and possession has yielded good results either (feel free to correct me if you think this is erroneous).

But these activities are so prevalent they probably had to decriminalize it as a purely practical matter, as there aren't close to enough jail cells or police officers to enforce such rules. Something has to give.

The thing about stores closing because of shoplifting is at least 90% bunk.

Are you talking about weed? I'm not familiar with decriminalisation of any other drugs.

If you are, I'd assume that the impact that it's had is that people are no longer getting locked up for weed. What other impact did you expect?

Yeah, the minor crimes like shoplifting, treason, public nuisance, insurrection and conspiracy.

Yeah, and stores in those same areas with 90% of items behind locked plexiglass is bunk, too, eh? I must be talking about the 10% because those corporations cited theft as the reason, but maybe they're lying and it's bunk?

If you're suggesting that smash and grabs and brazen shoplifting isn't ridiculously out of control in those areas, then you're no less partisan than the dude that is literally saying that the J6 clowns were just trespassing.

Oregon decriminalized everything.

Really? Even class A?

How does that work then, assume the feds can still pick you up for dealing coke in Oregon just like they can for dealing weed in Cali, right?

Well, they decriminalized all drugs for possession. I'm not sure what the punishment is for dealing and how much constitutes distribution, but it's on their website.

i dont know how many times we have to do this on this forum.. YES THE CORPORATIONS ARE LYING ABOUT SHOPLIFTING. https://www.ktvu.com/news/walgreens-...f-retail-theft

yes shoplifting occurs, no it is not bringing multi billion dollar corporations to their knees. AMAZON and other online retailers are though and the execs are looking for ways to pass the blame.

This. I'll allow that it's maybe 10% real. It's mostly bunk. Mostly it's frightened and/or hateful reactionaries addicted to fear mongering. It's mostly Amazon with an assist from Covid.