Iām not commenting on the specific Rob Reiner case but I think the general public sees the āinnocent by reason of insanityā plea as a get-out-of-jail free card. Something to be used simply because the person does not want to take responsibility or that the person using that defense is faking insanity to get out of paying for his crime. Weāve all seen cases like that. My personal theory is that no one is a 100% psychotic, I think even floridly psychotic people have a part of them that knows whatās going on.
And anyways, the percentage of cases where someone actually gets off due to an insanity defense is well below 1% of all criminal cases.
Delusions complicate everything.
This case is very complex; who knows whatās going on on the personāhead going through psychosis when thereās fear, detachment from reality, the hallucinations and more at the same time. Weāve had those exercises on NAMI F2F classes to have sympathy on our loved ones; we donāt know either what meds Nick was talking, as far as I know itās is recommended now that if a person is not getting better at the second try with the prescribed antipsychotic go for Clozapine which is the specific and effective treatment for schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia; I imagine that Nick was not on that one because of the mentioned length of his illness, the REMS restrictions, and the underutilized Clozapine in the US and the handful of licensed prescribers, now thereās more. What I have noticed is that an antipsychotic filled prescription has the information attached and it says āthis medication can increase the symptoms of psychosisā. Iām not an expert, Iāve noticed that negative feelings can pop up in the head of a person with SMI and many times they canāt control their reaction over that feeling; we āhaveā that capacity but sometimes we have to really decide beforehand what weāre going to do in a certain situation. I pray that each person involved in the decision of this case is clear in mind and heart.
The fact of the matter is that the legal definition of insanity has nothing to do with whether the defendant suffers from mental illness. The legal definition of āinsaneā is that the defendant is not aware that there are consequences for their actions. And if the District Attorney can demonstrate to the jury that the defendant is aware of the consequences for their actions, then the jury is required to reject the insanity plea.
Itās that simple. The defendant does not have to understand or accept that their actions are wrong.
I was on a jury where the defendant was obviously seriously mentally ill. The DA and defense attorneys both wanted me on the jury because of Billy. The defendant had gone on a spree of raping and murdering young women in his neighborhood. Before that he was stealing cars and holding up gas stations. His criminal record started when he was just 13 years old.
In other words, he was just like Billy, complete with the āIām going to kill youā Charles Manson stare.
During thew trial, the DA clearly demonstrated that he knew the consequences for his actions. And the jury delivered the appropriate sentence; the defendant was in fact eligible for the death penalty. The judge immediately sentenced him to death and that was that.
The defendant was a true sadist and shocking sexual deviate. It still disturbs me to this day to thing about what those women must have experienced at the hands of this monster. And to complicate things, I could have easily imagined Billy doing the exact same thing, without a shred of remorse.
I also have to say that the DA has a good case against the āinsanity plea.ā Theyāre going to point out the videos showing Nick walking away from the scene as evidence that he knew there were consequences for his actions.
I donāt know if Nick understood consequences or not at the time of the event. But thatās what the DAās case is going to revolve around.