| > That sounds like a troubled, mentally unwell person? You mean you don't know for sure? Do you want the investigators to stop investigating if a suspect "sounds" mentally unwell? Should prosecutors refuse to prosecute if the suspect "sounds" mentally unwell? What I'm saying is ... why, in this particular case, should that make any difference to the prosecution or investigation? We already find mentally troubled people guilty, we just sentence them differently. So, yeah, the sanity/insanity of an individual makes no difference to whether they are guilty or not, it only changes the specific nature of the charge (i.e. premeditated vs culpable) and the sentencing (asylum or prison). Someone is is genuinely mentally unwell in a way that results in them harming other people must still be kept away from society! IOW, people who are dangerous to others need to be locked up. Whether they are insane or not is not relevant to keeping them locked up, it is only relevant to where they are locked up, and how they may be rehabilitated. > Let’s say someone who’s mentally unwell wrote notes to confess to crimes, is it enough to convict them based on that evidence alone? No one is currently convicted on the basis of a confession alone[1]. Normally a confession just means that the investigation into the confessor is more thorough than it would ordinarily be. Is it perfect? No, but it is a lot better than you appear to believe. I think if you thought about it for more than a few seconds, you'd realise the questions you are asking have obvious answers. [1] Have you any idea how many people claimed to be famous serial killers? it happens more often than you think. It's also why specifics of a crime may not make it to the news, because the police use those specific details to identify those confessors who are not the perpetrator. |
> Someone is is genuinely mentally unwell in a way that results in them harming other people must still be kept away from society!
That is extremely poor and dangerous argument for putting them in jail in bad evidence. But yeah, when innocent people get into jail, it is fairly often on arguments like this.
> No one is currently convicted on the basis of a confession alone[1]. Normally a confession just means that the investigation into the confessor is more thorough than it would ordinarily be
Bases in innocence project, people who were provably not guilty were sentenced to death on confessions. And there is literally zero reason to think it is stopped happening.