If your defense is “I’m fundamentally unable to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable behavior, to the level of random physical violence, in a way that most people are not,” then you are saying “I am not fit to be in society,” and the only thing society should say back is “yes.” It’s insane that “incompetent to stand trial” does not lead to automatic lifelong committal in more sympathetic cases, and execution in those that are less so.
I agree. The whole "competent to stand trial" bullshit has always been a complete non sequitur. That legal "requirement" should have gone away when mental institutions did. This "oh well, we will just have to set them free to kill again since we don't have anywhere to send them" shit is evil.
“Unfit to stand trial” is an offshoot of Hanlon’s Razor. “The only person who would do such an evil thing is someone who is mentally ill, so anyone who commits such a crime is automatically unfit to stand trial.”
It’s the same logic that permits mothers an excuse to murder they’re own children and then receive a reduced sentence.
Obviously, bad actors flock to such reasoning as a reliable plausible justification for their own evil. That’s why a rational society does not soften punishments based on such arguments. People are dishonest, and criminals doubly so. If you need to punish a few actual retards - who still committed heinous crimes, mind you - in order to make sure that “fully cognizant liars” are properly dealt with, then so be it.
Retards should be even more liable for punishment/execution. If someone can't control their own actions they should be executed for the greater good and safety of others.
Someone in control of themselves is also liable, but at least they could be expected to repent of their ways and change. Violent Retards are just a ticking time bomb
Agreed. If you're too incompetent to stand trial, then the verdict should be instantly guilty. Especially for repeat offenders. Too dumb to understand the impact of what you did doesn't lessen the impact of what you did.
It's not just "doesn't lessen" it makes it so much more damning. The whole reason we aren't executing ne'er do wells for the protection of the good, is womanly crying about the whole "muh rehabilitation" pipe dream
Being deemed incompetent to stand trial is to be found mentally incapable of rehabilitation, which means there's zero reason to keep them around anymore
My hot take: Incompetence is worse than intent. Intent can be trained away, assessed, managed. Incompetence is eternal. Someone who causes harm by incompetence WILL cause harm by incompetence again.
The guy who killed his wife for cheating on him? Likely not going to kill anyone else, at least until/if he gets married again, and even then, not likely. The guy who killed someone else's wife because he was texting while driving? He's 100% chance gonna text and drive again, and create the exact same scenario again.
That's actually pretty common for people who plead insanity. I think that's only recently started to change, but normally it's a life-sentence to a mental health hospital.
He is charged with first-degree murder and evidence tampering in the death of the 18-year-old. Ludwig was hit by a stray bullet while out on a jog at Edgehill Memorial Gardens in November 2023.
Just months before that shooting, he was found incompetent in another case where he shot at a car. At that time, he was found incompetent by three doctors, but because he did not meet the standards of involuntary commitment to a mental health facility, he was released.
Too incompetent to stand trial but not incompetent enough to be involuntarily committed.
At that time, he was found incompetent by three doctors, but because he did not meet the standards of involuntary commitment to a mental health facility, he was released.
How does such a gap even exist, if not by malice? Criminal activity should be standard enough for commitment.
Also the "doctors" for criminal court cases are usually Psychologists that decided that whoring themselves out to lawyers instead of big businesses (for "research") was a better use of their 'skills' and should be criticized more. They rarely go against whichever side paid them, and have been shown to regularly fall for base level tricks criminals use when talking to them.
The gap exists for racketeering. See they can’t be involuntarily committed, they can however get mandated to a “second chance” mental health service outpatient service that gets paid by the state as a non profit whether the criminal shows up or not.
Its Psychology. It was founded by Jews on every level and has been run by them from infancy. Its in fact less Jewish now than it has been historically as it grew just by sheer limited number of them.
Here’s another, “Swiftie” killed by dindu a few months ago in South Carolina with over 40 prior charges and only received probation 5 times since 2013 for: Grand Larceny, strong armed robbery, breaking into motor vehicles, and burglary.
So either institutionalise him by force for gross incompetence and repeated law breaking, or jail him for something else which is probably a bad idea because it would set a shit precedent regarding incompetence and firearm ownership. Not that anyone here expects the gun(s) he has to be legally owned.
We already had the solution: three strikes laws. Very few people commit murder as their first offense, and very few people stop committing offenses after their third. If you leave a lifetime criminal on the street, the odds of him becoming a killer rapidly approach the maximum. Remove these people from your society and watch as crime and violence plummet.
The entire construct of "you must be mentally competent to be tried" is asinine and retarded.
Your stupid brain doesn't matter. Trial is about finding fact. Did you do it or not? Can you offer anything in your defense if you did?
You can be a drooling idiot locked in a plexiglass cage while your lawyer claims the person on video stabbing that girl isn't you. It doesn't matter. Your IQ is irrelevant.
This is all made up by Marxists so the most worthless people in society can get away with crime.
Incompetent to exist freely in a civilized society. There seems to be an awful lot of that coming out of very specific demographics...It's almost as if certain populations aren't compatible with the civilized conventions of European blooded societies.
If your defense is “I’m fundamentally unable to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable behavior, to the level of random physical violence, in a way that most people are not,” then you are saying “I am not fit to be in society,” and the only thing society should say back is “yes.” It’s insane that “incompetent to stand trial” does not lead to automatic lifelong committal in more sympathetic cases, and execution in those that are less so.
I agree. The whole "competent to stand trial" bullshit has always been a complete non sequitur. That legal "requirement" should have gone away when mental institutions did. This "oh well, we will just have to set them free to kill again since we don't have anywhere to send them" shit is evil.
The solution is to just hang them by the neck until dead then.
Or made paraplegic. The threat of that happening would deter some attempts to plead unfit.
“Unfit to stand trial” is an offshoot of Hanlon’s Razor. “The only person who would do such an evil thing is someone who is mentally ill, so anyone who commits such a crime is automatically unfit to stand trial.”
It’s the same logic that permits mothers an excuse to murder they’re own children and then receive a reduced sentence.
Obviously, bad actors flock to such reasoning as a reliable plausible justification for their own evil. That’s why a rational society does not soften punishments based on such arguments. People are dishonest, and criminals doubly so. If you need to punish a few actual retards - who still committed heinous crimes, mind you - in order to make sure that “fully cognizant liars” are properly dealt with, then so be it.
Retards should be even more liable for punishment/execution. If someone can't control their own actions they should be executed for the greater good and safety of others.
Someone in control of themselves is also liable, but at least they could be expected to repent of their ways and change. Violent Retards are just a ticking time bomb
They're certainly unfit to be in society either way. At best they should be lobotomized and dumped in a padded cell.
Agreed. If you're too incompetent to stand trial, then the verdict should be instantly guilty. Especially for repeat offenders. Too dumb to understand the impact of what you did doesn't lessen the impact of what you did.
It's not just "doesn't lessen" it makes it so much more damning. The whole reason we aren't executing ne'er do wells for the protection of the good, is womanly crying about the whole "muh rehabilitation" pipe dream
Being deemed incompetent to stand trial is to be found mentally incapable of rehabilitation, which means there's zero reason to keep them around anymore
My hot take: Incompetence is worse than intent. Intent can be trained away, assessed, managed. Incompetence is eternal. Someone who causes harm by incompetence WILL cause harm by incompetence again.
The guy who killed his wife for cheating on him? Likely not going to kill anyone else, at least until/if he gets married again, and even then, not likely. The guy who killed someone else's wife because he was texting while driving? He's 100% chance gonna text and drive again, and create the exact same scenario again.
They're doing it on purpose.
The problem is this makes too much sense, and the left wants more crime.
That's actually pretty common for people who plead insanity. I think that's only recently started to change, but normally it's a life-sentence to a mental health hospital.
Too incompetent to stand trial but not incompetent enough to be involuntarily committed.
Lol you can be a fucking street goblin stumbling around shooting at cars and still face no consequences
Why aren't judges held liable for shit like this?
There aren't any activists doxxing them yet.
How does such a gap even exist, if not by malice? Criminal activity should be standard enough for commitment.
Also the "doctors" for criminal court cases are usually Psychologists that decided that whoring themselves out to lawyers instead of big businesses (for "research") was a better use of their 'skills' and should be criticized more. They rarely go against whichever side paid them, and have been shown to regularly fall for base level tricks criminals use when talking to them.
The gap exists for racketeering. See they can’t be involuntarily committed, they can however get mandated to a “second chance” mental health service outpatient service that gets paid by the state as a non profit whether the criminal shows up or not.
the doctors are jewish
Its Psychology. It was founded by Jews on every level and has been run by them from infancy. Its in fact less Jewish now than it has been historically as it grew just by sheer limited number of them.
Here’s another, “Swiftie” killed by dindu a few months ago in South Carolina with over 40 prior charges and only received probation 5 times since 2013 for: Grand Larceny, strong armed robbery, breaking into motor vehicles, and burglary.
https://archive.is/JBAAy
So either institutionalise him by force for gross incompetence and repeated law breaking, or jail him for something else which is probably a bad idea because it would set a shit precedent regarding incompetence and firearm ownership. Not that anyone here expects the gun(s) he has to be legally owned.
We already had the solution: three strikes laws. Very few people commit murder as their first offense, and very few people stop committing offenses after their third. If you leave a lifetime criminal on the street, the odds of him becoming a killer rapidly approach the maximum. Remove these people from your society and watch as crime and violence plummet.
None of this is a secret. Look at El Salvador.
In order to claim incompetence for violent felonies I think it should be mandatory that the perp be given a lobotomy. You know, just to be sure.
The entire construct of "you must be mentally competent to be tried" is asinine and retarded.
Your stupid brain doesn't matter. Trial is about finding fact. Did you do it or not? Can you offer anything in your defense if you did?
You can be a drooling idiot locked in a plexiglass cage while your lawyer claims the person on video stabbing that girl isn't you. It doesn't matter. Your IQ is irrelevant.
This is all made up by Marxists so the most worthless people in society can get away with crime.
"Wow, he's mentally ill, he can't be held responsible!"
"Well, uh, I guess you can just release him into the population..."
Incompetent to exist freely in a civilized society. There seems to be an awful lot of that coming out of very specific demographics...It's almost as if certain populations aren't compatible with the civilized conventions of European blooded societies.
Ah yes better send him to arkham asylum then.
I agree. Niggers are not fit to stand trial. Express lane to the woodchipper.
then he's too dangerous to be kept alive. we put down violent animals for a reason.