Psychology debate #5: Imprisoning the Insane

[Flappy]

Hello all, in recent news, we have heard about Jared Laughner shooting and killing 6 people, and injuring 14 others in Arizona.

On the news last night, they were discussing whether he was mantally insane and what the right course of action was to deal with his trial and his imprisonment.

So the question of Psychological debate #5 is:
Should mentally unstable people who have been charged with felony(s) be imprisoned or institutionalized, or both, or some alternate solution?

Some points to think about:
-if they are mentally unstable, is it fair to charge them the same way as a mentally stable person?
-if they are treated for their mental illness, and there is little or no sign that it can/will return, should they be released, or should they remain institutionalized/imprisoned because people won't feel safe with them out?
-What do you think constitutes someone as insane?

Discussion of the actual Arizona shooting is not discouraged as long as it is in direct relation with the mental stability of Jared Laughner, if not, I'm sure there's another topic about it somewhere else.

[Flags_Forever]

-if they are treated for their mental illness, and there is little or no sign that it can/will return, should they be released, or should they remain institutionalized/imprisoned because people won't feel safe with them out?
They should definitely be released. We've seen numerous examples of groups of people being imprisoned because other people were afraid of them. It's obviously wrong.

[SwimFellow]

I would say so, but I think there needs to be a place, not a jail, away from society for people like Jared Loughner.. Possibly a mental hospital?

[Ryan]

I'm pretty sure the APA has classifications for what is and isn't insane. The problem is determining IF someone meets the criteria and whether or not they met the criteria at the time they committed the felonies.

Felons deemed mentally unstable should not be put in prison with those who are mentally stable. I should probably revise that to say they should not be allowed to interact. One facility should do fine, just segregated. The reasoning for this, is that felons classified as insane should be getting help to improve their mental stability. Also, mentally unstable people who committed felonies while mentally unstable, are not less likely to do so because they are in jail. It is for everyone's safety that they should be kept differently.

As far as whether or not they should be released after they are 'cured' should depend on the felony, on the mental instability, on the amount of improvement shown, and on many many many case-by-case variables and so it is not worth discussing here.

Currently Mentally unstable felons are not tried the same way as mentally stable ones. If a person pleads insanity, or is deemed mentally unstable, they are tried for the crime with part of the sentencing to be served in a mental facility where they can get help, and the remainder of the appointed time to be served in prison (of some kind depending on the crime) subject to parole.

[Flappy]

Something else they were discussing was how the governments idea of what it means to be insane is different from that of a psychologist....I don't remember what they said the difference was though.

[Ryan]

I think that the definition of insane should be restricted to psychologists and the APA, and not the government...I think that's reasonable.

[Flappy]

I agree. But that's not the way good ol' America works...unfortunately.