After the attack, Deobra Redden told a marshal the “judge has it out for me” and “judge is evil,” according to a document from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The man who brazenly attacked a Las Vegas judge after leaping over the bench and slamming her into a wall told corrections officers he had a bad day and tried to kill her, a police document shows.
That’s not how the insanity defense works. And even if it did you probably wouldn’t want to use it, because mental hospitals are a lot harder to get out of than prison.
In 2008 a man decapitated someone on a Greyhound, he taunted the other bus riders by showing them the severed head, and he ate some of the body in front of the other passengers. His lawyers used the insanity plea. He served his time and was let out in 2017.
If he didn’t plead insanity, I’d be extremely surprised if he weren’t still in jail.
Yeah, as that took place in Canada and most countries treat mental health problems much better than the US, like the incident in the OP. If he had cannibalized someone in the US he might not even be alive.
i did not say, “insanity defense”, nor did i imply it.
i find your replying to me as if i did, quite vexing.
on my first impression, these are the actions of someone who is unable to control themself, and as such, should be treated as a mental health case instead of a normal violent offender. there’s more to the story, of course.
i also think mental hospitals and prisons should be drastically reformed…
i used criminally insane because not all mentally ill people need to be locked up away from society…
obviously, uncontrolled rage means you should be locked up for a bit…
“Having a bad day” is likely a confabulation to explain away irrational behavior resulting from deficient impulse control, not an actual rational answer to a complex decision making process that led to the conclusion of “I know, I should attack the judge - that will fix my problems.”
Imagine if you had the misfortune to have a brain where every one of your intrusive thoughts ended up resulting in acting upon them.
I suspect most of this guy’s life was not by choice.
As a veteran with PTSD, DPDR, that has spent a lot of work, time, and money to not have a bad day. If I cannot prevent myself from committing acts of violence please just put me down.
There is no reason my existence, for whatever reason caused it to be fucked up should cause harm to others. As a survivor of abuse at the hands of Catholic Church, nothing justifies harming children. As a TBI traumatic Brian injury survivor of war, my continued existence and freedom for self determination doesn’t justify continuing to abuse others or commit unsanctioned acts of violence against others.
If I am incapable of controlling myself or not causing harm to others I should not be allowed to cause harm to others simply because I am a faulty individual that has been harmed or suffered. My suffering does not justify causing others to suffer. Get out of here with that bull shit. If the person refuses medications, therapy, work then the only alternative is involuntary treatment.
Where did I say it justifies or makes it acceptable?
It’s possible to take precautionary measures towards keeping people unable to avoid harming others separated from said others while simultaneously having empathy for what was likely a shit set of circumstances that led to that inability.
By all means, if you are going to harm others I think you should be locked up. And given I generally believe in as much self-determination as socially acceptable, I’d even want you to have access to ending your life if you didn’t want to be locked up but couldn’t prevent yourself from harming others.
What I wouldn’t want though, is for you to be punitively harmed yourself beyond forcible separation from potential victims. I don’t think you should be denied access to stimulating media, or put in dangerous situations for yourself, or made to be in barely livable conditions, or have your friends and family extorted with price gouging to connect with you, or to deny you quality medical treatment, etc.
The more punitive we make the conditions, the more it dissuades people who are afraid they can’t help harming others and don’t want to harm others from seeking aid in preventing harming others.
So yeah, of course this guy shouldn’t be walking the streets and assaulting people. I never said otherwise.
But it’s possible to hold that opinion in parallel with empathy for the circumstances he’s in and the life he’s forced to live as a result.
And attacking the judge was somehow going to make it better?
Great, now he has three more identical charges to face.
and a possible attempted murder charge?!
Shit, his bad day hasn’t even started yet…
He said that he tried to kill her… to police…
He’s not helping his case…
isn’t he just criminally insane at this point?
No.
good point!
clearly the actions of a sane man
That’s not how the insanity defense works. And even if it did you probably wouldn’t want to use it, because mental hospitals are a lot harder to get out of than prison.
In 2008 a man decapitated someone on a Greyhound, he taunted the other bus riders by showing them the severed head, and he ate some of the body in front of the other passengers. His lawyers used the insanity plea. He served his time and was let out in 2017.
If he didn’t plead insanity, I’d be extremely surprised if he weren’t still in jail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean
Yeah, as that took place in Canada and most countries treat mental health problems much better than the US, like the incident in the OP. If he had cannibalized someone in the US he might not even be alive.
i did not say, “insanity defense”, nor did i imply it.
i find your replying to me as if i did, quite vexing.
on my first impression, these are the actions of someone who is unable to control themself, and as such, should be treated as a mental health case instead of a normal violent offender. there’s more to the story, of course.
i also think mental hospitals and prisons should be drastically reformed…
Sorry, I was assuming by “criminally insane” you meant “not guilty by reason of criminal insanity” aka the insanity defense.
I agree that he probably needs mental health treatment regardless of whether or not he has any additional punishment.
i used criminally insane because not all mentally ill people need to be locked up away from society…
obviously, uncontrolled rage means you should be locked up for a bit…
“Having a bad day” is likely a confabulation to explain away irrational behavior resulting from deficient impulse control, not an actual rational answer to a complex decision making process that led to the conclusion of “I know, I should attack the judge - that will fix my problems.”
Imagine if you had the misfortune to have a brain where every one of your intrusive thoughts ended up resulting in acting upon them.
I suspect most of this guy’s life was not by choice.
As a veteran with PTSD, DPDR, that has spent a lot of work, time, and money to not have a bad day. If I cannot prevent myself from committing acts of violence please just put me down.
There is no reason my existence, for whatever reason caused it to be fucked up should cause harm to others. As a survivor of abuse at the hands of Catholic Church, nothing justifies harming children. As a TBI traumatic Brian injury survivor of war, my continued existence and freedom for self determination doesn’t justify continuing to abuse others or commit unsanctioned acts of violence against others.
If I am incapable of controlling myself or not causing harm to others I should not be allowed to cause harm to others simply because I am a faulty individual that has been harmed or suffered. My suffering does not justify causing others to suffer. Get out of here with that bull shit. If the person refuses medications, therapy, work then the only alternative is involuntary treatment.
I mean, this person should be in prison, but prison doesn’t have to be the horrifying fate it is in America.
It is possible to separate someone from general society, and do so with compassion. We just don’t here.
Where did I say it justifies or makes it acceptable?
It’s possible to take precautionary measures towards keeping people unable to avoid harming others separated from said others while simultaneously having empathy for what was likely a shit set of circumstances that led to that inability.
By all means, if you are going to harm others I think you should be locked up. And given I generally believe in as much self-determination as socially acceptable, I’d even want you to have access to ending your life if you didn’t want to be locked up but couldn’t prevent yourself from harming others.
What I wouldn’t want though, is for you to be punitively harmed yourself beyond forcible separation from potential victims. I don’t think you should be denied access to stimulating media, or put in dangerous situations for yourself, or made to be in barely livable conditions, or have your friends and family extorted with price gouging to connect with you, or to deny you quality medical treatment, etc.
The more punitive we make the conditions, the more it dissuades people who are afraid they can’t help harming others and don’t want to harm others from seeking aid in preventing harming others.
So yeah, of course this guy shouldn’t be walking the streets and assaulting people. I never said otherwise.
But it’s possible to hold that opinion in parallel with empathy for the circumstances he’s in and the life he’s forced to live as a result.