Part 2 - Mental Illness & voting. Would you want a mentally ill juror?
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
June 19, 2007 7:47pm CST
If you were wrongly accused of murder, would you want a mentally ill juror deciding your fate? Why or why not?
This discussion follows my earlier discussion about rumors of unnamed members of Congress debating whether the mentally ill should be allowed to vote.
The answers I received to that earlier question were very insightful. So much so, that it prompted this follow up question.
Please know that I do not harbor prejudices against the mentally ill, with the obvious exceptions of violent paranoid schizophrenics and sociopaths.
Rather this discussion is about whether the mentally ill have the same rights as any other US citizen, as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I look forward to your insights. Thanks!
4 people like this
8 responses
@Angelwhispers (8978)
• United States
20 Jun 07
First I think the term "mental illness" is a broad statement and one has to take into consideration exactly what type of mental handicap we are talking about. If someone is declared incompetent to handle his/hers own affairs then already many of the civil freedoms is already taken away. But most certainly those individuals that can and do handle their own affairs, should be afforded the same rights as everyone other American. Just because someone has a a mental illness does not mean that person can not think intelligently or make a voting decision based on what he feels a candidate for office would be able to serve and represent his needs and those like him best.
2 people like this
@Angelwhispers (8978)
• United States
20 Jun 07
"should be afforded the same rights as everyone other American."
I am sorry that should read "should be afforded the same rights as every other American."
I am sorry about that, my brain was thinking two different sentences at the same time.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Jun 07
Hello Angelwhispers,
First, thank you for correcting my obvious mis-type. I appreciate your clarification.
As to your excellent point about "mental illness"
being a broad statement -- you're absolutely right.
The first part of this mental illness question deals with many of the slippery slopes that can result in an overly broad definition of mental illness.
So, I might better have asked: If you were found guilty of a capitol crime, and your defense attorney learned that one or more of the jurors had been institutionalized, and was now living on their own, but still medicated; would you agree to try to have the case overturned, on appeal, based on the juror's possible incompetence? Rememeber, your life is on the line.
Would you see this as grounds for appeal? In other words, does the degree of mental illness affect one's ability to serve on a jury? And, if so, how is that degree determined?
1 person likes this
@Angelwhispers (8978)
• United States
20 Jun 07
LMAO okay I kinda missed the point of your discussion I was thinking only about the vote.... But no your right on a jury situation I would think it imperative that a jurors mental competency be taken into consideration. Being hospitalized alone would not merit dis-consideration, but if that persons logical thought process is impaired, then we really have to question his/her ability to weigh the evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt... NO chit Don't put them on my panel.
I am sorry again... I was only thinking about the right to vote when I first answered.
2 people like this
@mrrtomatoe (800)
• Canada
21 Jun 07
I would not want anyone to be mentally handicap on my jury, the only problem is how do we determine who is mentally handicap. Although we have a system of classification, it is flawed for 2 reasons. First, it is human made and therefore is subjective to the person who created it and secondly there are always cases who are borderline as a "grey" area.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Jun 07
Excellent points Mrrtomatoe,
Yes, this does present a true dilemma. How do we satisfy our need for sound judgement from jurors, who are selected from a pool of voters, and still make sure that reasonable standards are set? Furthermore, how can we implement a way of providing for variances in the degree of impairment?
Should there be a test for voter eligibility, or jury duty?
Thanks again for following the sequence of this topic. I recognize that it't not a fun or easy topic. Yet, it's very important. So, I appreciate your perspective.
1 person likes this
@jeanena (2198)
• Bucklin, Kansas
20 Jun 07
I do believe that usually they weed out the less able to function mentally . Unless you live in Kiowa County Kansas that is. Alot of the higher ups are less than competent I think.No seriously I agree with some of the others I think in a case of some of the slower people, for the most part they are easily led.So the vote could go either way.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Jun 07
Hello Jeanena,
So Kiowa has exemptions? My county does as well. And, I don't think we're alone.
Yes, many of the replies to this three part question have really fuelled a myriad of other, ancillary questions.
It's such a complex issue. Thanks for sharing your thougts
@sigma77 (5383)
• United States
20 Jun 07
I would not want someone mentally ill on my jury or deciding my fate. There has to be certain qualifications to be a juror, in my estimation. I don't think it is being prejudiced to not allow a mentally unfit person to act as a juror. As far as being mentally ill, there has to be some lines drawn. Would you want a mentally ill person running for president or congress? I don't know, maybe that has already happened..lol.
Two things come to me with this problem; determining just who is ill and who isn't and just how far an incapacitated person is allowed to make reasonable judgements (or if they even can make them). No matter how you go one this, not everyone will be happy. I think if there is to be a law for this, it will eventually have so many exceptions and loopholes that it will be uninforcable and useless.
And I am not convinced that we have the right people with enough knowledge to determine how or who is mentally ill.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Jun 07
Hello Sigma,
You've given this some serious thought. Thanks for sharing.
You make a very good point about qualificiations to be a juror. Yet, our jurors come from our pool of eligible voters. And, as I pointed out earlier, I can see some member of Congress making the argument that determining the fate of the defendant, isn't that different from determining the fate of the country.
You're also right about lines being drawn, definitions being agreed upon, and the fact that no matter how this goes, there will be some very unhappy campers. This is a terribly sticky issue.
@titaniumsoul (1191)
• Singapore
20 Jun 07
Although, I have expressed concerns about mentally ill citizens are prohibited from voting, I thought of another category which is how ill is he/she? The mentally ill citizen is at which level of sickness? Is it at the level of totally berserk, able to go for treatment or requires long term medications? If the citizen is totally berserk then he is not allowed to vote, if there is an exception then there is something wrong somewhere. On the next issue, if he is needs treatment, it is better to obtain doctor's certification tthat he is alright to vote and lastly, it will be same as the second explaination.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Jun 07
Thank you Titaniumsoul for following the different parts of this very complex issue. Yes, the degree of infirmity is key. Yet, since legislation is generally written to the lowest common denominator, how should the degrees be defined? By whom? Should there be exceptions? And, how does a poll worker, who is not a qualified medical profession make such a determination?
Very sticky issue with no easy answers.
@titaniumsoul (1191)
• Singapore
21 Jun 07
There 1001 or even more ways to do things, I can't possibly specify who should deal with this degree. If you happen to be the poll worker for your county and you happen to see a person with strange behavour such as talking to air or producing some abnormal acts, you should pay attention to that person. Rules and regulations are man-made, which can only be bend and not break. The most essential part of it is that there should be peace and quiet during the voting day.
1 person likes this
@kodie420 (872)
• Canada
21 Jun 07
Oh god no if it was me I would want my jurors as sane as possible. I dont think its right for someone who is classified as mental ill should be doing anything important like that. I understand we are all people but again the mentally ill shouldnt be allowed to do certain things especially something that could cost an innocent person his life. We have no idea what go's through these people's mind all we don know forsure is that the mentally ill usually do some weird stuff.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Jun 07
Hello Kodie420,
I appreciate your desire for lucid, sound jurors. As is evidenced by the rest of the post, so do most people. Yet, some people forget that jurors are selected from the same group of people who determine the fate of the nation (as was linked from part 1 of this question).
The overall theme of all three parts of this question is that the degree of impairment needs to be a primary consideration, before just stripping someone of their rights. That important consideration makes this a very sticky issue, with no simple answers.
So, I appreciate your candor on this complicated issue.
@TriciaW (2441)
• United States
20 Jun 07
Wow excellent question. I won't go over what others have said about the degree of mental illness and honestly I had never thought about it. I guess with my life on the line I would want someone that was thinking clearly without medication or such distrubing that. A trail like that would be long and stressful something someone suffering from a mental illness would have a hard time with. I guess as much as I hate to say someone wouldn't have the same rights due ot a mental illness I wouldn't want them on my jury. This is hard for me to admit since for many years I took care of children and young adults with many types of disabilities.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Jun 07
Thanks TriciaW,
Your personal experience assisting those with mental impairment probably makes this issue that much more complex for you. The same holds true for me. The more one knows about the varying degress of mental illness, the more difficult it becomes to dismiss the possiblity of impaired judgement by the mentally ill.
As I pointed out to Rachel above, the first part of this question outlines the rumors that some members of Congress are discussing the issue of mental illness & voting rights. Since jurors are chosen from a pool of eligible voters, the personalization of the question of sound judgement becomes a more important issue.
Yet, I can see how some members of Congress will argue that determining the fate of the defendant isn't all that different from determining the fate of the nation.
This is a very sticky issue, with no simple answers.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
@filmbuff (2909)
• United States
20 Jun 07
You'd have to define mentally ill for me to give an honest answer. Although I think that is part of this discussion.
I would not want someone who is "slow" on my jury. Their opinion would be far too easily swayed. I would want someone who is capable of intelligent independant thought. It doesn't even have to be entirely rational.
Many mentally ill would probably side with me, it would actually be to my benefit. Again though, only if they are capable of independent thought. If they're a little depressed, or a little paranoid that just helps my cause... it would aid my defence.
If however they aren't able to tell lie from truth, or likely to believe the prosecution and thier witness's, I would want them off the jury in a heartbeat. If all they see is "bad man who killed" when the trial starts and the prosecutor gives his opening statement; that would be an uphill losing battle.
Minnie Mouse is HOT!
filmbuff
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Jun 07
You're still right on target here Filmbuff. Thank you for following the layers of this issue, and the collateral repercussions.
I can easily see the argument made by some member of "The Hill" that: Determining the fate of the defendant isn't all that different from determining the fate of the nation. That the lucidity and mental accuity of the juror or voter is fundamental to sound judgement.
I certainly don't have the answers to this complex issue. But, since Congress just voted to rescind second amendment rights from the mentally ill (and you've probably noticed that that legislation was written to the lowest common denominator), that we citizens need to be discussing the possible scenario where other groups may be disenfranchised, and other rights stripped away.
Thanks for all your sound feedback!
1 person likes this
