0:00

We'll hear arguments first this morning in

0:02

the Jones against the United States. Hey

0:09

everyone, this is Leon from Prolog

0:11

Projects. On this episode

0:13

of 5 to 4, Peter, Rhiannon,

0:15

and Michael are talking about United

0:17

States v. Jones. In this

0:19

case, a man was arrested for petty

0:21

larceny and pleaded not guilty by reason

0:23

of insanity. The prosecution did

0:25

not challenge his plea, and

0:28

so he was automatically committed to a

0:30

mental institution. Had petitioner pled guilty to

0:32

that offense, or been convicted of

0:34

it after trial, he could have received

0:36

the maximum sentence of one year in jail. He

0:39

would now long since have been a free man. In

0:41

the end, the man spent more time in confinement

0:43

than he would have spent in jail had he

0:45

simply pled guilty. When he

0:48

appealed, Supreme Court held that being found

0:50

guilty by reason of insanity is proof

0:52

enough that someone is dangerous, and

0:55

can be committed indefinitely. This

0:57

is 5 to 4, a podcast about

0:59

how much the Supreme Court sucks. Welcome

1:06

to 5 to 4, where we dissect

1:08

and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have drained

1:10

our nation, like trying to buy a

1:12

house has drained me. I'm

1:14

Peter. I'm here with Michael.

1:17

Hey everybody. And Rhiannon. Hi. Just

1:19

wait till you have to try to sell a house.

1:22

That is the fucking pits, my friend. I

1:24

don't care about this being draining. Move

1:27

on. Look, I've leaned into

1:29

the metaphor being just whatever is making

1:31

me personally miserable every single week. I'm

1:33

no longer doing big picture metaphors. This

1:35

is now just an update. A hunt

1:37

Peter's life. It's a Peter update. An

1:39

update on what's going on with Peter.

1:41

Yes. I'm like five days into house

1:43

hunting, and let me tell you, I

1:45

don't like it at all. It's not

1:48

fun, and it's scary, and

1:50

I don't know what's happening. And when

1:52

I look up house hunting for beginners,

1:55

it's basically the

1:57

most overwhelming stuff I've ever consumed in my life. I

2:00

don't think our country should operate this way.

2:02

Yeah. All right. And I

2:04

know you guys own houses, but it's different

2:06

for you because you both inherited yours from

2:08

your wealthy families. Yeah, that's

2:11

what happened. Yeah.

2:15

All right. Quick content warning

2:18

before we move on here. We

2:20

are going to be talking about

2:22

mental health issues, mental health crises.

2:24

There's also super archaic language like

2:26

insane and insanity being used by

2:28

the court that we're going to

2:30

be referencing and using throughout. So

2:33

just a little heads up there. This

2:35

week's case, Jones v. United

2:37

States, this is a case from 1983

2:39

about something we've never

2:42

talked about before, the insanity

2:45

defense. I'm going

2:47

to present you all with a

2:49

hypothetical situation that should resonate with

2:51

our listener base. Okay.

2:54

Okay. You are being accused of

2:56

murder and in fact, you did commit it. Okay. Yeah.

3:00

You have a defense. When you

3:02

committed the murder, you were not of sound

3:04

mind. You were listening to

3:06

dozens of hours of a podcast about

3:09

the Supreme Court every single

3:11

week. Yes. Maybe

3:13

you were trying to buy a house. It's

3:15

really losing it. And

3:19

so what do you do? You plead

3:21

insanity, so to speak. You argue that

3:23

you were not culpable for your actions

3:26

due to your mental state and

3:28

the court agrees. They're like, no one could listen

3:30

to that much of a Supreme Court podcast. And

3:34

so you win. You are

3:36

not guilty of the murder,

3:39

except you don't really win because

3:42

in your state, anyone

3:44

who wins using an insanity

3:46

defense gets automatically thrown into

3:48

a mental health facility. You

3:50

end up being committed for

3:53

longer than you would have been in prison

3:55

had you been found guilty.

3:58

So this case. poses the

4:00

question constitutional

4:04

and the Supreme Court and a five

4:06

to four decision says yes,

4:08

of course. Absolutely. Yeah. So

4:11

we're going to talk about this case. We're going to talk about the insanity

4:14

defense itself, one of

4:16

the weirdest little bits of

4:19

criminal law in our system. Yeah.

4:21

And talk about how this all

4:23

sort of intersects with discussions of

4:25

mental health and crime in the

4:27

carceral system. Yeah,

4:29

we should talk first about maybe

4:31

just about a distinction. It might

4:33

seem like a quite specific or

4:35

like, you know, you're really trying

4:37

to thread the needle with this

4:40

distinction, but it is important legally

4:42

speaking. When we're talking about being

4:44

committed legally for a mental illness,

4:47

there are two different kinds of

4:49

commitment. There's criminal commitment and civil

4:51

commitment. You can be civilly committed

4:53

or criminally committed. Using the

4:55

insanity defense and getting committed to

4:58

a mental health facility in a

5:00

criminal case is a criminal commitment,

5:02

right? But other kinds of commitment

5:05

on the basis of your mental

5:07

illness or the symptoms that you're

5:09

experiencing as a result of mental

5:12

illness, most people

5:14

are actually more familiar with civil

5:16

commitment. So this would be, for

5:18

example, the kinds of involuntary commitments

5:20

that are allowed by law when

5:23

somebody is experiencing acute mental struggle,

5:25

right? Some state might allow for

5:27

that involuntary commitment to be for,

5:29

you know, up to 24

5:32

or 48 or 72 hours. Those are

5:34

civil commitments and civil commitments can be

5:36

extended right under the law. But we

5:38

just want to make a distinction here

5:40

that with the insanity defense, you're talking

5:43

about a criminal case, these are criminal commitments.

5:45

And what the court is doing here is

5:48

making different kinds of rules based

5:50

on whether you're civilly committed or

5:52

criminally committed, making different kinds of

5:55

rules in the constitution based on

5:57

that distinction. Right? So turning Back

6:00

to the case. this would actually

6:02

is not about a murder or

6:04

something much less serious than a

6:06

murder is. Is September Nineteen seventy

6:08

five and Michael Jones was arrested

6:10

for petty. Larceny in be seats

6:13

for attempting to steal a jacket.

6:15

Petty Larceny This is misdemeanor theft.

6:17

Again, attempted to steal a jacket

6:20

is not a serious, definitely not

6:22

a violent crime. That.

6:24

Charge carried a maximum possible prison

6:27

sentence of up to one. Here

6:29

in Dc at that time. So.

6:32

In mirror of at least some indication

6:34

that Mr. Jones had some serious mental

6:36

illness because the judge ordered that he.

6:39

Undergo. A competency evaluation.

6:41

So competency is different than the

6:43

insanity defense. Competency is a test.

6:45

Make sure that you're fit to

6:47

stand trial, which Mr. Jones was.

6:50

But then once you move on and

6:52

a criminal case, you can still plead

6:54

insanity even if you are competent at

6:56

the competency evaluation. A psychologist diagnose Mr.

6:58

Jones that paranoid type Schizophrenia, but he

7:00

did say that he was fit to

7:02

see and frail. Now we

7:04

get into the details of this defense of

7:06

insanity. So. Insanity as a

7:08

defense you can bring up before trial

7:11

in most places in the United States

7:13

is a kind of pleased that you

7:15

make you plead insanity. Insanity.

7:17

Does not mean. I have a

7:19

mental illness so I'm not guilty. And

7:21

importantly, it does not mean I'm so

7:24

mentally ill that I don't understand what's

7:26

happening right now. My criminal case rain

7:28

that again refers back to legal competency

7:30

that something else. Insanity means that

7:32

at the time of the crime. The.

7:34

Accused person. Was so mentally

7:37

disturbed or mentally incapacitated that

7:39

they did not have the

7:41

required mental states. That. Required

7:43

intention to commit the crime So

7:45

therefore they're not guilty, right? It

7:47

doesn't means oh, I was diagnosed

7:50

with Schizophrenia, so I'm not guilty,

7:52

right? It's actually with the specific

7:54

mental state was at the time

7:56

that the office was committed. The.

7:58

Insanity Defense means you a said

8:00

we admit that you did the

8:02

crime, but you're denying responsibility for

8:04

it because you lack the capacity

8:06

to act intentionally. This. Is

8:09

important to keep in mind. It's important to

8:11

keep in mind the Insanity defense does not

8:13

mean you are saying someone is. Permanently.

8:16

Insane right and can never be

8:18

held responsible for their actions. It

8:20

is that temporary state referencing only

8:22

the time that the often was

8:24

committed. So. Mr.

8:26

Jones does this. He enters a plea

8:28

of insanity. He's saying yes, I attempted

8:30

to steal a jacket. Guess I did

8:32

do that. But when I did it,

8:34

I was experiencing such a cute mental

8:37

illness that I was not asking with

8:39

the intent that. A. Mentally to pieces

8:41

person would act with right, and that's

8:43

what's required by law to be found

8:45

guilty. So. I can't be. Held

8:47

legally responsible. I cannot be found

8:49

guilty. So. We'll talk in a minute

8:52

about the law that is in play

8:54

in Dc at this time. But what

8:56

happens is that Mr. Jones enters his

8:58

we Have insanity. The prosecutor does not

9:01

oppose it. It's not thought about in

9:03

court, so the players accepted and it's

9:05

entered. And according to the law at

9:07

the time, Mr. Jones was automatically committed

9:09

to a mental health institution. So.

9:12

After fifty days of commitment following N

9:14

G R I not guilty by reason

9:17

of insanity The line Dc at the

9:19

time required that there be a hearing

9:21

to determine basically of Mr. Jones is

9:24

still to mentally ill to be released

9:26

right at. That hearing, it's the

9:28

defendants or Mr. Jones. Who. Has

9:30

the burden of showing that he has no

9:32

longer mentally ill or dangerous if he wants

9:35

to get out of the mental facility. A

9:38

psychologist at the facility where Mr. Jones

9:40

with committed testified that Mr. Jones is

9:42

illness with still quite active and that

9:44

he posed a danger to himself and

9:46

to others at that city day Mark.

9:48

So. The court ruled that Mr. Jones

9:51

would remain committed in that facility. Now.

9:54

The law allowed for new hearings every

9:56

six months after that if somebody wanted

9:58

to contest their commitment. But

10:00

be capable of some procedural confusion

10:02

at the time Mr. Jones that

10:04

a new attorney. He actually didn't

10:06

get another hearing until early nineteen

10:08

seventy Six, which was about a

10:10

year after he had originally been

10:12

committed. Now. Remember the

10:15

maximum punishment for petty

10:17

larceny. The. Crime that Mr. Jones

10:19

was charged with. Had he been

10:21

found guilty of it, it would have been

10:23

a year in prison. So at this point.

10:26

Mr. Jones is argument with that

10:28

his commitment with extending. Beyond what

10:30

he'd maximally could have. Been

10:32

sentenced to write and so he.

10:35

Should then be released. Any.

10:37

Alternative he was saying. Maybe

10:39

I could be read? Committed

10:41

if the government wants me to be

10:44

very committed, but that's your only happen.

10:46

According to Civil Commitment standards, right where

10:48

the burden is on the state. I

10:50

could have a trial where a jury

10:53

would decide right, evidence would be presented.

10:56

The. Court denied all of the court said.

10:58

It. Doesn't matter that you. Have

11:00

been committed for longer than what could

11:03

be the maximum sentence. We're not gonna

11:05

give you civil commitment protections. this is

11:07

criminal commitment. Denied all of those requests

11:09

and so Mr. Jones appealed and and

11:12

makes his way all of the way

11:14

to the Supreme Court. Aren't

11:16

so. Let's. Talk about the

11:19

opinion here. Big picture. You have

11:21

this D C law that basically

11:23

says know if you are acquitted

11:25

because you fight insanity. Then.

11:29

You. Are automatically committed to a

11:31

mental health facility, right? So there

11:33

are essentially to issues here. First.

11:36

Is it okay to automatically

11:38

without any hearing or process,

11:40

commit someone who successfully relies

11:42

on the insanity defense? And

11:44

then second, if so, can

11:46

you commit someone for longer

11:48

than their prison term. Would

11:51

have been had they actually just

11:53

been convicted of the crime. So

11:55

Justice Louis Pal rights the majority

11:57

here. First he talked about the

11:59

idea. The automatic commitment. So.

12:02

Again, when someone in Dc successfully

12:04

plead insanity, they are automatically committed

12:06

to a mental health institutions. So.

12:09

This is due process concern, right? Because

12:11

there's no hearing or anything it's like,

12:14

well as as really this really okay.

12:16

There are various constitutional provisions that seem

12:18

to be relevant here. Cs: When.

12:20

He please and Sandy, the defendant in

12:22

this case is saying, was not mentally

12:25

culpable at the time of the

12:27

crime. Rates That's different than a court

12:29

finding that he is mentally ill at

12:31

the time of the court case,

12:34

let alone that he is too dangerous

12:36

to exist freely in society, right?

12:38

So it's like you know, it's some

12:40

pretty obvious constitutional concerns due process

12:42

concerns here. Absolutely. Just. The for

12:44

illustrative purposes for this like. One.

12:48

Slavery of sort of insanity defense

12:50

you might be familiar with his

12:52

like the battered spouse syndrome which

12:54

is when somebody is still victim

12:57

of domestic violence. And.

12:59

Then they sort of break and

13:01

kills their abuser. That is someone

13:03

saying I was not in a

13:06

mental state to make letter sound

13:08

judgment at the time. But.

13:10

They are also no longer in

13:13

a relationship with their abuser and

13:15

therefore no longer in the future

13:17

Dangerous. Rights. I am in.

13:19

It can also be you know, a substantial

13:21

period of time after all, absolutely commission of

13:24

the crime So palace As a couple of

13:26

things about this first he says look. Congress.

13:29

Found that this was an adequate

13:31

reason for in voluntarily committing someone

13:33

again. This is D C. So

13:35

Congress Federal Congress has passed a

13:37

law. Which. Like. It.

13:41

Congress passed the law and you are

13:43

being asked to determine whether it is

13:45

constitutional. Say yes. That is simply how

13:47

laws were crisis. That is what the

13:50

court does rak. It seems weird to

13:52

say like, well, Congress thought it was

13:54

okay. Like that's a good argument. Like

13:56

rights, laws are passed by the legislature.

14:00

And then they are reviewed by the judiciary

14:02

which is you by the way. We were

14:04

viewed the record and it seemed like the

14:06

people who passes bill thought it was a

14:09

bad idea and not constitutional rights, but the

14:11

fact that can happen Brasenose. If I get

14:13

that, the people that passed the law. Liked.

14:16

It that is should assess assess the

14:18

okay. So he cites the findings from

14:21

a committee on this topic. But the

14:23

findings are just like the committee being

14:25

like while we think it's okay to

14:28

forcibly hospitalized these people guess it's not

14:30

likely were citing research or something or

14:32

setting experts right. It was just sort

14:35

of be committee giving it's own personal

14:37

opinion of whether this is okay yeah

14:39

simple language. The quilt also I think

14:41

is indicative of. How

14:44

seriously Congress Texas like They call

14:46

it a sex toy scheme for

14:48

committed of insane criminals. Insane criminals.

14:50

That's not a phrase I think

14:53

you will find in the congressional

14:55

record. In the modern era.

14:57

Because. We understand you don't

15:00

trust. Categorize. People

15:02

that way right? right? But the like. all

15:04

these people are nuts and dangerous. Yeah, head

15:06

with says out a minute hospital And for

15:08

the record, this law was passed in nineteen

15:10

seventy. So what we're running with here is

15:12

a bunch of. Congress. People

15:14

from nineteen seventy speculating about mental

15:17

health that that's what we're working

15:19

with. And the network? Yeah, So.

15:22

Power follows up by saying quote. It

15:25

comports with common sense to conclude that

15:27

someone who's mental illness was sufficient to

15:29

lead him to commit a criminal act.

15:31

Is. Likely to remain ill. And.

15:34

In need of treatment which like I

15:36

didn't I could do this. And I

15:38

didn't know that instead of giving an

15:40

actual argument as a supreme court as

15:42

as you could, you say it's common

15:44

sense. Yeah, and leave it at that

15:46

lazy it feels sort of rude when

15:48

there are four dissenters. Gets his be

15:50

like wow, commonsense I didn't even have

15:52

expired. Not going to explain is so.

15:56

Appear majority agree with you more and

15:58

not everybody is not. Woman from.

16:00

And a lot. Of it's. Just not

16:03

really a common sense issue whether someone

16:05

remains mentally ill over the span of

16:07

several years like how are you deducing

16:10

that would commonsense, Are you gonna common

16:12

sense yourself? Into. A psychiatry

16:14

degree? Or hell, this. Earth

16:17

and I almost want to sit. There

16:20

is junk science, but that's not really

16:22

it. It's like the assumption of junk

16:24

science. Rates yes. Likes: The most obvious

16:26

issue here is that the court seems

16:28

to treat like insane and not insane

16:31

as like a binary. Think some people

16:33

are crazy and some people are nice.

16:35

Obviously not reckoning with the spectrum of

16:37

mental health here. So the idea that

16:39

someone might experience Schizophrenia at one point

16:41

and then shortly after be. A

16:44

totally functional. Person. Doesn't

16:46

really comport with powers conception of what

16:48

it means to be crazy or whatever.

16:50

Right? Totally. Or that somebody could

16:52

have Schizophrenia for their whole life.

16:54

Pets be experiencing at a different

16:56

time, run, different. Way. And right right.

16:59

Or. To have any kind of mental

17:01

illness and then to receive treatment and for

17:03

the treatment to work and for you know,

17:05

a person to be completely. Chains Najaf when

17:07

I was reading. Up about this

17:10

case, I saw a law professor

17:12

back in the mid East described

17:14

that pals arguments here as the

17:17

use of spoke wisdom. like just

17:19

saying. it's common sense and all.

17:22

Everybody knows this re likely his

17:24

hands down these assumptions about people

17:26

over years and that's what my

17:29

daddy taught me about people with

17:31

paranoid type schizophrenia know Sprite. Now

17:33

it's It's not actually legal arguments,

17:36

it's not legal analysis. And maybe.

17:38

More importantly, it's not informed by medical

17:41

science even at the time distances and

17:43

keep their own Reyes. You see this

17:45

a lot in. The criminal

17:47

legal system with regards to like

17:49

any time mental illness comes up.

17:52

But one example that really persists

17:54

in a dangerous way to day

17:56

till this day is in death

17:58

penalty cases. you know. Texas, for

18:00

example, when a jury is deciding whether

18:03

or not to give somebody the death

18:05

penalty, it's one of the factors that

18:07

the jurors have to take into account

18:10

is the defendants potential for future dangerousness.

18:13

Future. Dangerousness. Psychiatry will tell

18:15

you all day long is.

18:18

Largely not predictable fights that's not

18:20

grounded in medical science. when you're

18:23

getting testimony about somebody is supposed

18:25

the potential for future dangerousness that

18:27

is largely junk, right? You can't

18:30

assess it, you can't predict it's.

18:32

And the recidivism rates for people

18:35

who have mental illness like bear

18:37

this out. There is not really

18:39

a connection with people who commit

18:42

crimes. Wednesday. You

18:44

know, don't have full mental capacity. It's

18:46

and that correlates to them committing crimes

18:48

in the future. That it's not their

18:50

the dad is not there in the

18:52

sciences and they are. You still see

18:54

it persists saying across the criminal punishment

18:56

system for sure and you see it

18:58

in this case with Powell making an

19:00

entire majority opinion out of well as

19:03

is just common sense. But insane guy

19:05

is just insane. right? Yeah, So

19:07

next Powell get to the

19:09

question of whether it's constitutional

19:11

that someone in a situation

19:13

be involuntarily committed for longer

19:15

than the potential set this

19:17

for his crime. But pal,

19:19

basically just as know, this

19:21

operates like normal civil commitment.

19:23

I normal civil commitment. Sind.

19:26

Definite, you are committed, ensure you

19:28

prove that you are not a

19:30

danger to yourself or others. So

19:32

first of all, he sort of

19:34

just conflating what this is, a

19:36

specific type of commitment for insanity,

19:39

equities, and civil commitment. But maybe

19:41

more importantly, he's not really reckoning

19:43

with this arguments. What's interesting about

19:45

this argument is that it's sort

19:47

of prodding at the absurdity of

19:49

some of our involuntary commitment laws.

19:51

like it doesn't really make sense

19:53

that we have finite senses for

19:56

people. Who commit acts crimes but

19:58

indefinite detention for people. Who.

20:00

We deem dangerous in some general

20:02

way is right, right? right? But

20:04

rather than reckon with that tension.

20:07

Pals, Just sort of like, well that's

20:10

how it is, right? We have any

20:12

Amazon? Yeah, that's it. Was very weird

20:14

sort of opinion. and that way in

20:16

the sense that he's just very consistently

20:18

being just describing what the literal laws

20:21

on the books are. When the question

20:23

should be, are those lockers constitutional? Do

20:25

they make sense to they comport with

20:27

due process? He really never gets to

20:29

those questions as bizarre know, it's a

20:32

really sloppy opinions So there are a

20:34

to to sense and Brennan's is the

20:36

principles A sense and. It's quite

20:38

good at sort of dissecting

20:41

the sloppiness of have this

20:43

opinion and taking seriously the

20:45

difference between cyanide commitment an

20:48

indefinite commitment sitting seriously, the

20:50

difference between criminal commitments and

20:52

civil commitments, and. Trying.

20:54

To. Consider. All the

20:57

interests involved and coming out

20:59

with some sort of appropriate

21:02

balance right size so he

21:04

says. You. Know the

21:06

petitioners sort of conceives and we

21:08

think it's right that if you

21:10

plead insanity and are not guilty

21:12

by reason of insanity that some

21:14

fine, a period of commitments. Might

21:17

be appropriate or could be

21:19

appropriate, or it's could be

21:21

constitutional. That said, if if

21:24

Congress deems appropriate but indefinite

21:26

commitment. Is. A serious

21:28

burden on liberty. And

21:31

one that requires. A

21:33

higher show. It. right? Yeah like

21:35

if should be a larger bird in

21:37

on the government's in what is required

21:39

of them. See it? And.

21:42

I. Mean other I don't know what

21:45

to say other than like yeah,

21:47

god speed up the yes, That's

21:49

correct, it is common sense. Unless

21:51

you're gonna put someone in a

21:53

hospital for the rest of their

21:55

lives like sets, That is a

21:57

serious serious imposition on their liberty.

22:00

If it is very strong

22:02

on talking about. You. Know.

22:05

How much of an imposition on their liberty

22:07

It is? He talks about like.

22:09

You know, when you're committed? Much

22:12

like being incarcerated, you can't leave.

22:15

You can't see family and friends,

22:17

Your hours are dictated to you,

22:19

your autonomy a stripped of you.

22:22

but. Unlike. Incarceration

22:24

he often can no longer decline

22:26

medical treatment and so you might

22:28

get medicaid is against your will,

22:31

and psychotropic drugs often have serious

22:33

side effects that last even after

22:35

you stop taking them and it

22:37

is very good at that point.

22:39

I also think he, he, he

22:42

doesn't dwell on it, but he

22:44

makes i think correct point that

22:46

and of the majority sort of

22:48

collapses the distinction between Peters openings

22:51

hypothetical in the reality here, right?

22:53

He says there's room for doubt whether

22:55

a single attempt to shoplift in a

22:57

string of brutal murders are equally accurate

23:00

in equally permanent predictors of dangerousness threat

23:02

which we didn't really touch on the

23:04

fact that this guy just stole a

23:07

fuckin' jacket or a this is the

23:09

idea that this guy that someone who

23:11

still jackets. Even. Like compulsively

23:13

needs to be like kept off

23:15

threat to reach or something for

23:18

his deemed dangerous right? That's wild

23:20

that. so why? right? It just

23:22

doesn't really feel like what. The

23:24

like commitment process is meant to

23:26

deal with right? right? But the

23:28

thing is the like, outer boundaries.

23:31

Of these prophecies in both this context and

23:34

like the civil commitment process or just super,

23:36

he's F straight and so you get to

23:38

be like well the end. This is where

23:40

that binary comes in. Where the court gets

23:43

to be like well he's crazy So like

23:45

however it manifests is irrelevant right? The important

23:47

point is that he's just crazy. Last gets

23:50

a frantic in a made him steal a

23:52

jacket. So who are we to say that

23:54

has schizophrenia My that make him stab someone

23:56

next to make in a wreck. That's basically

23:59

the majority opinions. Nice to get.

24:01

Yeah, Which is we should just say

24:03

like incredibly able astray. Oh absolute. Can

24:05

not make those determinations these on

24:07

somebody past behavior space on a

24:09

medical diagnosis that the in the

24:11

future of the. Going to be

24:13

violent? Yeah to stab minority

24:15

Report redemption since it's right,

24:18

Exactly. I. Think it is time for

24:20

a quick. Read. Or

24:23

we are back there. Is another

24:25

descent Justice Stevens right to dissent.

24:27

It is one paragraph long. He's

24:30

just making a procedural point or

24:32

maybe just emphasizing where he stands.

24:34

Procedurally on this stuff is. Stevens

24:36

is dissenting because in his opinion,

24:39

A defend it would be

24:41

presumptive li entitled to their

24:44

freedom to release from commitment

24:46

after being and commitment. For.

24:49

The maximum amount of time that they

24:51

would have been criminally punished in the

24:53

criminal case had they been found guilty.

24:55

Bright lights off for Mr. Jones says

24:57

the seasons is saying Mr. Jones was

25:00

presented li entitled to his freedom to

25:02

being. Released. From.

25:04

The mental health facility after a period

25:06

of one year like that. kind of

25:08

the maximum rights. And that presumption is

25:11

important that the state could argue that

25:13

Mr. Jones needs to stay and for

25:15

longer than that, but then the burden

25:17

would be under state. The state needs

25:19

to bring some evidence, the state needs

25:22

to bring some testimony. The state needs

25:24

to bring that case right now, but

25:26

it would be legally presumed at least

25:28

the maximum term. That. You would

25:30

have been punished had you been found

25:33

guilty in the criminal case. That's when

25:35

the commitment. The criminal commitment. Or.

25:38

Insanity Quote: Unquote. Should.

25:40

Presumptive: Li end yet it's

25:43

interesting the majority is doing something

25:45

with are saying look. This

25:47

isn't penal not committing you as

25:50

a penal measures for rehabilitative purposes

25:52

because you are mentally ill and

25:54

the principal descent they may be

25:57

cast little side i effort but

25:59

said. The most part, take it

26:01

in good faith and argue and

26:03

good face around that premise and

26:06

as it. The. Way to read

26:08

Stevens descent is him to sort of being

26:10

like see the fuck are we to the

26:12

yes? Like righteous guy stole the jacket and

26:14

we're not imprisoning him because he's insane. We

26:17

are imprisoning him in a hospital instead, right?

26:19

And so it should be for the same

26:21

once. In a lot of ways it's like

26:23

the most honest opinion about of the three

26:25

Yes in that sense. I think because it

26:28

is getting at what's really going on here.

26:30

In the majority of the very least, which

26:32

is there like well, this is a bad

26:34

time and he should be punished Yes, exactly

26:37

exactly. is quite practical. My few sentences

26:39

very fact of on. One thing I

26:41

want to mention before we go on is

26:43

like a we sort of dance around this

26:45

a bit too but like obviously there's no

26:47

real such thing as insanity right? It's just

26:50

like cyber antiquated at way to refer to

26:52

like a spectrum of mental health issues which

26:54

is not to say there aren't like discrete

26:56

mental health conditions. gets a friendly as one

26:58

of them but like. It's

27:01

a little bit surreal to be operating

27:03

under a framework that feels like. A.

27:05

Hundred and Fifty years old. You naughty me

27:07

right right At As A is very very.

27:10

Antiquated. Approach till Mental

27:12

Illness Understanding of Mental Illness

27:14

and it is a very

27:16

old word insanity that the

27:18

largest like a holds on

27:20

to of right. right? It's just

27:23

like you're being convicted for a case of

27:25

the crazies and like were just talking about

27:27

this in a court right in. the nineteen

27:29

eighty bucks going on gets his descent at

27:32

one point sites a case from like eighteen

27:34

Ninety Five's. And it's just. The.

27:36

Saito like mental health care in

27:38

the eighteen nineties was like, oh,

27:41

a woman is in the throes

27:43

of hysteria. Let's give her a

27:45

superhero. assesses, you know what? It's

27:49

like a retarded about what they were bad

27:51

things about a to them. Says

27:54

it's know but like turning to the

27:56

history of Ndr. I not guilty by

27:58

reason of insanity. This. The sounds the

28:00

first time it ever comes up is

28:02

in England and the eighteen forties. this

28:05

is called them. It's not and rule.

28:07

based on this Guy Mcnaughton who went

28:09

to trial but was found not guilty

28:11

by reason of insanity. He murdered somebody.

28:13

He murdered the wrong guy. He murdered

28:15

somebody he thought was like the Prime

28:17

Minister of England, but it was just

28:19

like a guy on the street. Yeah,

28:21

one of the worst mistakes you can make. It.

28:25

So Mcnaughton was found not guilty

28:27

by reason of insanity and the

28:29

House of Lords again this like.

28:31

Eighteen Forty three In England. They.

28:34

Are fastened a rule they said to

28:36

establish a defense on the ground of

28:38

insanity. it must be clearly proved that

28:40

at the time of the committing a

28:42

be act. The. Party at use with

28:44

laboring under such a defect of reason

28:46

from disease of the mind as not

28:48

to know the nature and quality of

28:50

the asked he was doing. Or.

28:53

If he did know it that he did

28:55

not know what he was doing was wrong.

28:57

So. In general the of kind

29:00

of weird. Rule that we're talking

29:02

about is born out of this

29:04

eighteen forties. Understanding of

29:06

mental illness right? that sometimes

29:08

somebody could be so mentally

29:11

ill thought. He. Basically,

29:13

don't understand the difference between right

29:15

and wrong guy or they don't

29:17

understand what they are doing in

29:19

the moment and therefore they can't

29:21

be found legally. Responsible. So.

29:24

Basically throughout history since the eighteen

29:26

forties with the Mcnaughton rules and

29:28

then bringing over the English Common

29:30

Law to the United States in

29:32

the Us for most of our

29:34

history. The. Insanity defense was

29:37

basically the Mcnaughton Rural Right. Like to

29:39

somebody understand the difference between right and

29:41

wrong when they committed a crime, to

29:43

the understand what they were doing when

29:45

they committed a crime. That.

29:48

Was. Basically. The

29:50

rule is through the

29:52

sixties, seventies. Into their

29:54

early eighties. The Model

29:57

Penal Code in Nineteen Eighty

29:59

One. The definition of

30:01

insanity was. A lack

30:03

of substantial capacity. Either

30:05

to appreciate the criminality. Of

30:07

their conduct. Or. To conform their conduct

30:09

to the requirements of the law, you see

30:11

that basically this is the Mcnaughton Are All

30:14

right. But. Something wacky

30:16

happened in Nineteen Eighty One,

30:18

which is that John Hinckley

30:21

tried to assassinate President Ronald.

30:23

Reagan and he also in the

30:26

musician Drugs Including Cigarettes. Thirty Years

30:28

are All Night It with. All

30:31

of. Insanity. Defense History

30:34

is bookended by attempts on

30:36

the life of a. President.

30:39

Or prime Minister right? As

30:41

and all circles begs, right? Yeah, basically.

30:43

And John Hinckley in the early

30:46

Nineteen eighties of course, was tried

30:48

but was found not guilty by

30:50

reason of insanity for that assassination

30:52

into attempts on Ronald Reagan. The

30:54

public went fucking ape shit that

30:57

they did not like fast that

30:59

he, you know, quote unquote got

31:01

off even though he was criminally

31:03

committed to a mental health facility.

31:06

Also, remember to study sound real

31:08

But wasn't his reason that he

31:10

was trying to impress Jodie Foster?

31:12

Yes, that aside, right. Yeah, so

31:14

like yeah, Who. Were to

31:16

come on. Epiphanies offense

31:18

is worth a goddamn thing. Surely you try

31:20

to shoot the President to impress your the

31:23

foster right? You gotta be able to play

31:25

the card at that point, right? right? right?

31:27

You would think so, but people really

31:29

really didn't like it. They did not

31:32

like sex. Nuclear quote Unquote. Gotten off

31:34

by using the defense of Insanity. I

31:36

look back and found some quotes from

31:38

people members of the public who had

31:40

been interviewed about their reaction to the

31:43

Hinckley verdict in the Washington Post. An

31:45

individual in D C said, you know

31:47

it didn't take them long to catch

31:49

John Wilkes Booth and take care of

31:52

him. We as a society have gone

31:54

wrong since then. We as a nice

31:56

in have made. Hinckley same as we

31:58

spent millions and his. They'll and he

32:01

beat us. Unquote, Another

32:03

person said justice is funny. It looks like

32:05

now you can just do anything you want

32:07

and then just played crazy. Be.

32:09

Attorney General William Friend Smith said

32:12

quote there must be an end

32:14

to the Doctor in that allow

32:16

so many persons who commit crimes

32:18

of violence to use confusing procedures

32:20

to their own advantage and then

32:23

to have the door open for

32:25

them to return to the society

32:27

which they victimize. Very very intense

32:29

language. Obviously people are under the

32:31

impression that you know Hinckley, other

32:34

people who use this insanity defense

32:36

or like. Getting. Off Scot

32:38

free or just like release rates.

32:40

And not understanding at all

32:43

the punishment Sometimes very intense

32:45

punishments that comes from having

32:47

use the insanity defense. A

32:49

Cornell University survey after the

32:52

Simply Verdict found that eighty

32:54

seven percent of the people

32:56

surveyed believed that the insanity

32:59

defense was a loophole that

33:01

allowed people. To go Free. So.

33:04

After the Hinckley verdict, it's clear

33:06

that you know the public really

33:09

doesn't understand how the insanity defense

33:11

works. At least they don't understand

33:13

what it means that somebody quote

33:15

unquote is not guilty by reason

33:17

of insanity, What that actually realistically

33:19

means for what happens to the

33:22

person in terms of a commitment

33:24

to a mental health facility, punishments,

33:26

that kind of thing right across

33:28

the country. After the Hinckley verdict,

33:30

seats decided to either abolish the

33:32

insanity defense altogether. Or in

33:34

general make it much harder to

33:36

use the insanity defense. They. Would

33:39

change the statutory definitions of

33:41

insanity and how somebody could

33:43

plead insanity at trial. That

33:46

made it much more difficult

33:48

to find somebody. Quote. Unquote

33:50

legally insane at the time that

33:52

they committed an offense. So.

33:55

Even know before all of this before

33:57

Hinckley throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies at

33:59

that. I'm that Mr. Jones in

34:01

this supreme court case came to

34:04

the Supreme court. The insanity defense

34:06

was really, really rarely used. It's

34:08

it was used in less than

34:10

two percent of felony cases. It

34:12

was not successful very often. It's

34:14

a very hard defense to actually

34:17

succeed on. so. I

34:19

think really what this shows. Is.

34:21

That. Court. Don't.

34:23

Like insanity as a defenseman, the

34:26

court does it want to contend

34:28

with any sort of complicated medical

34:30

reality is the medical science. The

34:33

also don't want to contend with

34:35

the procedures that are operating here

34:37

in this historical context in which

34:39

just a couple of years ago,

34:42

the public, the government, everybody was

34:44

really mad at the idea that

34:46

somebody was getting off easy no

34:49

matter that, the reality was that

34:51

simply was committed to a mental.

34:53

Health Facility and stayed there for

34:55

decades. The. Court doesn't want to deal

34:57

with what any of this really. Means they

35:00

just want to punish somebody that.

35:02

There's. Another bit of sorta parallel

35:04

not not quite related history here which

35:07

is just about be sort of course

35:09

of involuntary commitment in the U S.

35:11

used to be that just about any

35:13

one experiencing some sort of mental health

35:15

issue could be committed against their will

35:17

and the way that is played out

35:19

was a people. Would. Literally be

35:22

committed for public drunkenness when diction. Yeah,

35:24

were some outlier cases where the people

35:26

in situations like that were kept committed

35:29

for the rest of their lines. And

35:31

then in like the mid century forties,

35:33

fifties, sixties, a few things happen. First

35:36

you get the development of anti psychotic

35:38

drugs which provide an alternative to institutionalization.

35:40

Then you get like some expos a

35:43

about the conditions and some mental health

35:45

facilities which were fucking disgusting. Yes. And

35:47

then you also get the Civil Rights

35:50

movement and it's attendant. Movements which

35:52

sort of change how we

35:54

think about individual liberty. And.

35:56

So. The. System changes

35:58

and after that. You can

36:00

only commit someone who is a

36:02

danger to themselves or others. And

36:05

theoretically that was supposed to be

36:07

accompanied by public investments, mental health

36:09

treatment, and care. But of course,

36:11

that never really comes. And and

36:13

so here we are. Yeah, so

36:15

that's sort of happening in the

36:18

background, that sort of the shift

36:20

in the country's approach to mental

36:22

health care. When

36:24

you have instances of sort

36:26

of like discrete psychosis, etc.

36:29

And I do. You think it's

36:32

worth discussing involuntary commitment a little

36:34

bit what it's like even today.

36:37

After that, Peter said a lot

36:39

of reforms aimed at improving it's

36:41

you know, these days it's not

36:44

always clear whether involuntary commitment is

36:46

actually beneficial. Sometimes it's not, and

36:48

in fact can be traumatizing to

36:51

lead to loss of trust to

36:53

meet people. Suggesting that they're

36:55

going to be less open about their

36:58

struggles and less likely to seek help

37:00

in the future. As something that's be

37:02

rare, it's something that should be. Extremely

37:05

rare and only done

37:07

with a lot of.

37:10

And. I.

37:12

Had some quotes from one of

37:15

these studies about the effectiveness of

37:17

involuntary Commitment investigating the impact of

37:19

Involuntary Psychiatric Hospital Zeeshan on use

37:21

and young adult trust and help

37:23

seeking and pathways to care by

37:26

Neb June's and others. It

37:28

was like a prison. You. Wake Up At

37:30

this time they come into wake you up. If you

37:32

want a shower they have to be. They're monitoring. It

37:35

wasn't like we were talking to him is

37:37

like they were just standing guard and just

37:40

very colds. After. Lunch maybe the

37:42

take a south side to this little

37:44

enclosure that was often stay in felt

37:46

like animals on display. their. They

37:48

didn't see us as people. One.

37:51

Of the patient said hey, you need

37:53

to stop crying and I was like

37:55

why I don't care why and another

37:57

was like well they won't let you

37:59

out unless you show emotional stability Nothing

38:01

Oh My. God. Okay so you have.

38:03

Adapted behaviors to end

38:06

this of hiding. Emotional

38:08

states, feelings of dehumanization,

38:11

being stripped of autonomy

38:14

and that has. Totally

38:16

separate and apart from. Often

38:18

being medicated against stairwell with drugs

38:21

that will lead to long term

38:23

side effects that could include kidney

38:25

damage, liver damage, involuntary muscle spasms,

38:28

debt continue on for the rest

38:30

of your life. even if you

38:33

stop taking the medication and literally

38:35

reorganized away, your brain works. Yeah,

38:37

changes the way you think the

38:40

when you experience the world. Yeah,

38:42

yeah to say nothing of just like it

38:44

doesn't make me feel good. I like like

38:46

how I feel when I'm on this medicine.

38:48

Yeah, you know I'm somebody who

38:51

is a believer in medication for

38:53

mental illness as someone who struggles

38:55

with bipolar my entire life and

38:58

has been on a whole range

39:00

and suite as medications. But the

39:02

idea that it's just being forced

39:05

on you and like Brennan mentions

39:07

and descent, this is also very

39:09

ripe for abuse. We're medication. Very.

39:12

Easily to before the institutions

39:14

benefit rather than the patience

39:17

for sedation purposes to make

39:19

people more compliance. That and

39:21

easy to deal with rather

39:23

than for their benefit right?

39:26

So. It's something

39:28

that should be taken very seriously, right?

39:30

And compared to the language and attitude

39:32

of the majority opinion, it's clear that

39:35

it's not screw that of yeah, I.

39:37

Think what you're getting at Michael

39:39

is that this is punitive. Guess:

39:41

For as much as the court

39:43

wants to say that this is

39:45

about rehabilitation, so somebody has found

39:47

so mentally ill to be in

39:49

need of this kind of commitment.

39:51

It's because they need care. It's

39:53

because they need rehabilitation. It's that

39:55

a new treatment. But actually the

39:57

reality of this is that it's

39:59

punitive in his punishment for the

40:01

crime and the way the court

40:03

treats this case proves that right

40:05

right in saying like it doesn't

40:07

even matter, this is involuntary commitment.

40:09

It is for an indefinite period

40:11

of time. He can extend beyond

40:13

be maximum sentence you would have

40:15

received had you been found guilty

40:17

of the crime. That to me

40:19

makes it in and of itself

40:21

on it's feet. Punitive. Frightening does

40:23

is punishing people in another way.

40:25

You consider not sending them to

40:27

present. But you are and sir

40:29

just interject your i want are also

40:32

be clear not just punish people for

40:34

the crime but also for invoking the

40:36

insanity defense. Yeah right yeah right. A

40:39

a method for attempting to cut this

40:41

defense off? Yeah yeah. It exactly

40:43

right and I see all of that.

40:45

Like brings me back to why it

40:47

is that in the law there is

40:50

an insanity defense. Like the whole point

40:52

as we've set up throughout the episode

40:54

as I talked about in the beginning,

40:57

the whole point is that there are

40:59

times. When. People are

41:01

under such intense mental

41:03

duress. Are experiencing such

41:05

a cute, serious? Symptoms of

41:08

mental Illness when it it's temporary

41:10

or longer term. But in the

41:12

moment he commit a crime and

41:14

legally as a society we say

41:16

you know what, You have this

41:18

defense because legally as a society

41:20

we cannot hold you responsible for

41:22

that. You were not in your

41:24

right mind, mental illness or what

41:26

have you was operating in such

41:28

a way inside your body, on

41:30

your brain that we are not

41:32

going to hold you responsible. That's

41:34

really important because in the criminal

41:36

law. In any sort of. Beauty.

41:39

Of a just system, you

41:42

are holding people responsible, finding

41:44

people guilty because they intentionally

41:47

committed wrongs. For. Whatever harm

41:49

they cause for whatever sort of

41:51

you know, ill, or crime against

41:53

society that they committed, it's because

41:55

they intended to do so. And

41:57

so we hold them responsible because.

42:00

They did something on purpose to

42:02

hurt somebody. whatever it may be.

42:04

So that's why you have the

42:06

insanity defense is supposed to be.

42:08

You know, like in his pressure

42:10

cooker, that there's this pressure valve

42:13

to relieve all of the states

42:15

violence that can fall onto somebody

42:17

for committing a crime. It's supposed

42:19

to be that you have this

42:21

outlet because you cannot legally be

42:23

found responsible for something that you

42:26

did when you had severely diminished

42:28

capacity for understanding what you were

42:30

doing right, wrote. And so that

42:32

idea. The whole reason why you

42:34

have an insanity defense for what

42:36

reason why and Gr I exists

42:39

is so that the system is

42:41

not overly inclusive. In

42:43

terms of punishment so that it's

42:45

not overly punitive to people who

42:47

are obsolete, not responsible for what

42:50

happens and see are you have

42:52

in this case and in lots

42:54

of cases that are about mental

42:57

illness in the criminal legal system

42:59

including tons of death penalty jurisprudence

43:01

at the supreme court's the you

43:03

have in this case. Which.

43:06

Says essentially sat in

43:08

definite. Involuntary commitment.

43:11

For. Being sound insane

43:13

for using and you arrive for

43:16

using the insanity defense that that's

43:18

okay. You. See that the

43:20

whole system is just so

43:23

attuned, so turn towards punishment

43:25

as the automatic response that

43:28

they never even considered. There

43:30

is not even a consideration

43:32

anywhere in the majority opinion

43:35

of why Mgr I. Exists.

43:38

In the law. Yet I'm this

43:40

case is a very good

43:42

reminder of how consistently but

43:44

how awkwardly mental health care

43:47

and incarceration intersect in this

43:49

country, and how often the

43:51

debates about mental health care

43:53

very sloppily overlap with debates

43:55

about incarceration. A. Really lays

43:57

bare a lot of the lies.

44:00

That. We as a society tell

44:02

ourselves about mental health care and about

44:04

prisons. Like on. One hand,

44:06

you have lawmakers and courts essentially

44:09

treating commitment and mental health facilities

44:11

and prison sentences as if they

44:13

are interchangeable here and then. On.

44:16

The other you have. it's really weird element

44:18

of American criminal law which is that people

44:20

in our system. A sensibly

44:22

are sentenced based on their culpability which

44:24

requires a certain state of mind and

44:26

yet we consistently imprison people who we

44:29

know have mental health issues by. And

44:31

the response from our legal institutions has

44:33

essentially been to ignore that problem rather

44:35

than to try to confront. And And

44:38

that me bleeds over from our culture

44:40

where people talk about mentally ill people

44:42

in public spaces like they are a

44:44

problem for cops to address rather than

44:47

something that is like miles downstream of

44:49

a dozen different policy failures. And so

44:51

we. Are perpetually facing this hammer

44:53

a nail problem because the only

44:55

tool and our arsenal that actually

44:57

received any funding and public support.

45:00

Is. The car subtle system and the way

45:02

that's like manifesting right now as you

45:04

have. Discussions. About like. You.

45:07

Know visibly mentally ill people

45:09

in New York and San

45:11

Francisco, for example, Who.

45:13

Make other people uncomfortable basically and maybe they're

45:15

dangerous. Maybe they're not. We don't really know,

45:17

but people want. Action taken.

45:20

And. It's very unsatisfying to

45:22

the average person To say well be. Action

45:24

that is to be taken is like holistic.

45:27

We need to prevent this shit from happening

45:29

is a reality failure. Fred said the action

45:31

that needed to be tainted need to be

45:33

taken Twenty years ago when writing they needed

45:36

real interventions when they were in school. When

45:38

they were kids, they needed access to healthcare

45:40

right? Said it said it's. A. Lawyer said last

45:42

week that you have put him in a house. Yeah

45:44

right. like. Does this person have a

45:47

police a sleep late and can be pretty simple

45:49

policy wise, his lap. And it has created

45:51

a space for right wing freaks who like

45:53

if you read their policy papers and shit

45:55

on a staff what they want. Is

45:57

to make it easier to. Commit

46:00

people and voluntarily again wasn't should

46:02

have a lower the bar a

46:04

little bit so that basically homeless

46:07

people experiencing mental illness and just

46:09

be tossed into facilities against their

46:11

well. That's sort of detached from

46:13

the insanity defense question of course,

46:16

but it. Is. All

46:18

part of the same sort

46:20

of tapestry of how our.

46:22

Legal. System deals with mental

46:25

illness and. That. Is

46:27

to say that it does so very

46:29

clumsily with absolutely no fucking regard. To

46:32

what actually works, let alone the

46:34

humanity indignity of people experiencing mental

46:36

illness. Sweet

46:42

Premium episode. As promised, we're going

46:45

to be talking about right wing

46:47

resistance. The Supreme Court both Stuart

46:49

Lee and right now just a

46:51

couple months ago Texas thought would

46:53

be cool to just ignore the

46:56

Supreme Court on the Border and

46:58

we thought that was interesting. And

47:00

if we're going to talk about,

47:02

how about Traces as part of

47:04

a long history of right wing

47:06

resistance and the court. Follow.

47:09

Us on social media at Five

47:11

for pods, scribe to our patria

47:14

and for episodes like that patriotic.com/five

47:16

for Part all sold out. Get

47:18

those episodes had free episode access

47:21

to our slack authorship See you

47:23

next week! Five to Four is

47:25

presented by Prologue projects. Recent word

47:28

is our producer the and they

47:30

fought in his assertions provider to

47:32

to support his or researchers is

47:35

Jonathan to prove Peter Murphy designed

47:37

or website. Five for pod.

47:45

And or season by special.