Does science show the legal system should have more treatment instead of consequences?

[OddBeMe]

How much of brain impairment, past abuse should influence a case?

It could be that an abusive mother slapping her kid, damaging their frontal cortex and they’d have less ability to stop their violent urges.

Doesn’t mean they’re insane or innocent but should it affect the sentence? Should we have more treatment and less consequences? We can do both but does one need more focus?

More Consequences

More Treatment

[MrOracle]

Ideally, we'd have more treatment, yes. Unfortunately, treatment is expensive, and 35% of working age adults don't work a legal job (some of them "work" illegal jobs, such as drug dealers, arms dealers, fraud, etc.).

The US *could* afford treatment, but only IF *all* illegal immigration was stopped, if welfare and ESPECIALLY Disability fraud was cut off (there are whole extended families on Disability, and plenty of doctors who will give anyone Disability for "social justice"), and if we enforced criminal law and public use of alcohol and drugs. But, the places that need treatment the most are the ones moving the other direction - not prosecuting crimes, declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants, and who have a hands-off drug policy. These places vote for people who have no political will to solve these problems - just the opposite in fact.

If those leaders were on a boat that was taking on water, not only would they not be bailing water, they would be drilling more holes in the bottom of the boat, knowing that they had already secured a seat on the lifeboat for themselves.

[Leopard23]

I think the law and the consequences for breaking it are all that prevent a lot of people from doing some vert shitty things, I mean when you see some of the absolutely horrible immoral things people do to each other simply because they can legally do it.

I think a big thing about it when you mention violent people who maybe need psychological treatment rather than punishment I agree but the end consequence of say a mass shooter should be the complete ling term loss of freedom more to protect the public than punishment.

We should also start looking at how many SSRIs and other antidepressants and their involvement in criminal activity, murder, mass shootings and Karen behaviour.

Should also end the war on drugs and spend that money on drug treatment clinics. You can't just jail people for being a junky.

[dustybiker]

Doesn’t it depend on a doctors diagnosis? Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Not sure how they apply that to criminal cases.

[Wallythewalrus]

In most states, the legal definition of "insanity", is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. That's just a basic legal interpretation.

[dustybiker]

@wallythewalrus How is that proved though? Pretty easy to fake, no?

[Wallythewalrus]

For a prosecutor it's easy to prove they're NOT insane. Mainly because the subject starts to "cover up" the crime. Get rid of evidence, go into hiding, get alibis... That is all evidence that they know what they did was wrong. That's why insanity is rarely used as a defense, contrary to popular belief.

[dustybiker]

@Wallythewalrus That makes sense.

[msc545]

More treatment, including treatment for those all those good people longing to punish others.

[Stoner710]

By that logic I should be a mental asylum