Mister_Rogers

I’m not 100% sure, that’s a good point, I’ll look into this. I agree in this case is does seem that way, but be careful for falling prey to making conclusions on a sample size of 1, there are outliers in any data sample. To be sure there are without doubt cases where the insanity plea yield shorter sentences, but from my education on the topic it’s always been my understanding that this is the case on average (to be clear, this isn’t through internet articles or word of mouth on Facebook, this was from multiple sociology and criminal psychology courses taught by PHd educated individuals. As a disclaimer while I have a Masters in Psychology and have done original research in political psychology, my main field is not criminal psychology specifically).

I looked for a solid while and couldn’t verify the claim of my past professors, I found one study in New Zealand contradicting this claim specifically saying that on average NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity cases) served shorter sentences (note the wording of “served” referring to how much time they actually served, rather than just the sentence as you were asking about initially) on average in murder cases compared to other individuals with serious mental illness that did not receive NGRI sentences. However they take this as evidence (since it’s based on actual time served, rather than the initial sentence), that murder cases treated as NGRI are a positive vs. putting these same individuals in prison given the taxpayer pays for them to be incarcerated for a shorter period of time, AND alongside this results in a lower likelihood of future reoffending upon release. Some things I found across studies was 1) there is heavy racial and gender bias present in when NGRI pleas are granted, 2) recidivism rates are generally lower in NGRI cases upon release.

Thanks for raising this point, I learned some things!

Links below:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/cbm.2120
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.fsiml.2020.100033

This is true to an extent, I think the focus there (if done correctly) isn’t on being retributive so much as ensuring a very safe “err on the side of caution” buffer that often means longer times spent imprisoned than the exact point that they are rehabilitated.

All my data points relied on actually data and trends rather than needing a highly unlikely hypothetical. Furthermore, the only issue with your hypothetical is the continuing view of the killers being a retributive one as well, they, and anyone with a retributive view on crime is the problem. The goal of our justice system is not (at least in most of the developed world), the US excepted and should not be to make another human suffer until, paraphrasing your own words, the original victim is satisfied.

The American punitive view vs. a rehabilitative one is terrifyingly real in these comments. It was an awful awful thing that happened, and he should be monitored the rest of his life, but if it is determined by medical professionals (a.k.a. not you) then he deserves to lead a full life, and have the opportunity to contribute to a society that he caused harm too instead of being a cost to taxpayers everywhere for the rest of his life, while he is medicated and able to rejoin society, that harms everyone even more in the long run.

This man should have had the health supports he needed before this ever happened, likely something exacerbated by the US medical system.

Also to dispel some common myths:

• Due to legal fees, it costs significantly MORE to sentence someone to death in the US (sidenote, also one of the few 1st world countries still conducting the backwards barbaric practice), than the cost of them continuing to serve life in prison; it is not the “cheap” option.
• Insanity pleas on average 1) yield longer sentences in mental facilities than similar cases where there was no insanity plea, b) if not successful in getting an insanity sentence yield longer jail sentences on average. From a criminal judicial standpoint, there is very rarely any advantage to pleading insanity, and it’s even rarer still that someone actually gets it when they were not in fact insane. The testing, and level of evidence needed far exceeds what you can gather from a casual read and comment online. It is a hugely rare thing legally, we just tend to hear about them as they’re represented in the media at disproportionate rates compared to standard trials.

To all my American friends, not shitting on you, you’re a wonderful country, of largely wonderful people, but with some bad bad bad policies that I hope will improve in coming years.

Love,

Your hat.

No, there isn’t.

Do the actual ethical thing and buy a used car. You’re putting money back into the hands of actual working Americans instead of companies, contributing dramatically less to climate change by reusing an existing product, you’ll get a dramatically nicer vehicle, and save money too.

deleted by creator

As a Canadian it really depends whether I say Zee or Zed. Looking online I was surprised to see that it has apparently been Zed in Canada for a long time, but I distinctly recall being raised on Zee until about the mid 2000s then everywhere in the curriculum it was Zed and I started hearing it more. Probably the biggest influence on whether I say Zee or Zed just depends on pop norms, and what sounds better.

Some examples:

• Zee Zee Top, obviously
• Jay Zee
• 350Zed and 370Zed (in reference to Nissan’s sportscar models, this actually changed for me over time, for the longest time I would say 350Zee or 370Zee, but when referring to the model broadly, it’s always Zee Cars, or for the classic model, it’s Fairlady Zee. Fairlady Zed just sounds awful)
• Day-Zee (the movie and video game)
• Dragon Ball Zee (ALWAYS, Dragon Ball Zed would be madness, I’ve never even considered saying Zed here, perhaps because I encountered it more in my Zee prevalent childhood)
• Zed-DX (the Acura)
• BMW Zed4
• La-Zee-boy (the sofas, obviously, ruins the pun otherwise)
• Alfa Romeo SZed (another car, it seems any time it is separate letters or a series of letter making up a name it’s virtually always Zed)
• ABC song, is always Zee for me, but I’ve heard others say Zed her often. To me it’s weird because otherwise it doesn’t rhyme with “next time won’t you sing with me”. Oddly if you asked me to say the alphabet backwards though, my first instinct would also be Zee.
• the phrase “from A to Zee”
• If you asked me what the last letter of the alphabet is, or to spell Zebra, I would say Zee, it seems when referring to the letter alone I pretty consistently use Zee
• I just asked my wife to spell Zebra and she said Zee though

At least the British and Americans are consistent, I don’t even know what the heck I’m doing here!