Idiots and insane people can't vote in Kentucky

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/constitu/145.htm

But don't forget, this is the same state that has the Creationist Museum.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I don't have a problem with the insane persons part of that although I do think it should stipulate those under the care of the state.
The exclusion of idiots is a little more problematic. What is an idiot. I am sure there are those who firmly believe that anyone who would speak publicly in favour of (pick 'em) is clearly an idiot and should not be allowed near the polling both, but apart from that where is the line. Is 'ward of the state due to mental incapacity' a reasonable boundary? How about anyone who didn't finish grade 12? Anyone who is too stupid to factor a quadratic equation?

[lawrocket 3]

I have a BIG problem with treating those “under the care of the state” as if they are not American people. As if they are not stabilized by treatment.

Heck, let’s do away with all rights of the mentally ill. It’s been argued plenty on here that the Second Amendment should not apply to a person with a mental disorder, i.e., anorexia. Now let’s take away their right to vote. Right to trial by jury. How about their Fifth Amendment rights? Fourth? All of them!

Pass the Tylenol…

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

So criminals should not be allowed to vote but the criminally insane should?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

So criminals should not be allowed to vote but the criminally insane should?

It is not criminal to be insane.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andrewwhyte 1]

No, but it does impair your ability to make rational decisions, by definition. If that has been established to the point that you are not able to make your own personal decisions (hence the 'care of the state') perhaps you should not be entrusted to make decisions for the group.

[lawrocket 3]

You understand that mental illness is just that – an illness? Think of a person who is an insulin dependent diabetic. Perhaps you know some of them. With proper treatment and control, the diabetic is otherwise normal. But a crisis may occur where the diabetic can run a car into a playground. Sound familiar?

Would you, for example, say that a diabetic who has gone into shock at some point should not be able to vote? How about a diabetic who was on the way to the polling place and went into shock? Should that diabetic have the absentee ballot she is filling out in the hospital room torn up because she is not mentally competent? What about a person with a seizure disorder who has an established history of being incoherent and in post-ictal states?

That’s far more what mental illness is like. Severe mental illness. Why should the mentally ill person be disallowed to vote when the chronic alcoholic IS allowed to vote?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,454]

>It is not criminal to be insane.

Nor, in many case, is it insane to be criminal. But being insanely criminal is pretty bad.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

It is, I would contend, a matter of degree. Someone who is hospitalised from an insulin shock or diabetic coma incident is not a ward of the state.
John Hinkley Jr. on the other hand is. I would remind you that he is not a convicted criminal. Should he have the vote?

[lawrocket 3]

Interesting question. It appears that Hinckley is indeed a competent adult at this point in time. Hinckley has been treated for thirty years and is petitioning for his release on the basis that he is and has been competent. His doctors are petitioning the court to free him from custodial care because his illness is controlled. Just like diabetes, there are plenty of mental illnesses that can be controlled. His doctors are saying he doesn’t need to be in a hospital anymore.

So why is a guy whom the medical community says is doing well (i.e., understands right from wrong, etc) being held up as an example of someone who shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Yes. I would suggest that Hinckley SHOULD be allowed to vote. He’s a human being with an illness that has been well controlled for decades now and done what he’s been required to do to prove he’s ready to return to society.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Hmm, well I was unaware that his doctors have proclaimed him competent. My argument however was attempting to use him as an example of someone for whom the doctors insist is not competent. Should that person who's actions have proven to be severely detrimental to those around them, but who are deemed to not be responsible, should that individual be allowed within the decision making community?

[Southern_Man 0]

As for the other part of the equation, idiot is an anachronism (and I would argue without specific legal or medical definition). Historically the term changed and those some folks would have been referred to as profoundly mentally retarded and now profoundly intellectually disabled. Generally it refers to people with an IQ of less than 30. I work with such people every day and w are required to offer them a chance to register to vote (unless they have been specifically adjudicated as incompetent and the court, as part of its order has said they cannot vote). I am not aware that any of the people I work with that fall in that range actually vote.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hmm, well I was unaware that his doctors have proclaimed him competent

That’s the key. When Reagan was shot, I was not competent to vote. In fact, I had to wait another ten years before I was allowed to do so. A lot changed in that period of time.

Hinckley really is one of the best examples of this. He’s an example of the problems that mental illness can cause. He’s an example of the efficacy of treatment of mental illness. He’s an example of a justice system that looks to physicians to commit people doesn’t want accept the opinions of those same physicians that say his commitment should be terminated. And he’s an example of public perceptions of mental illness meaning a person cannot be treated or return to some degree of normalcy.

Quote

My argument however was attempting to use him as an example of someone for whom the doctors insist is not competent.

Right. And you selected a person whom doctors insist IS competent. And further demonstrated that while he was NOT competent at one point he is competent now and can be maintained at a level of competency that he has had for quite some time.

Quote

Should that person who's actions have proven to be severely detrimental to those around them, but who are deemed to not be responsible, should that individual be allowed within the decision making community?

I don’t see why not. Now you’ve gotten into the realm of making thoughts about a person’s effect and not a person’s competence, intelligence, etc. I personally think that FDR’s effect on this country has been awful. I’m apparently in the minority with this thought. An alcoholic has terrible effects on others. A person who was texting while driving and sideswiped a car has also had bad effects. The diabetic who went into shock and went into a playground has had a bad effect. The person with herpes having unprotected sex has had a nasty effect on plenty. Yet those people aren’t generally considered to be the types who shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Once the issue is changed from “competence” to “look at the harm that person has caused” (I’m not talking felons – I make an exception for them) it becomes a much more muddied debate.

Let’s stick to “competence.” And merely being in a state mental health hospital is not a reflection of that person’s competence at the time. Like Hinckley, it may be a competent person who can’t get let out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What is an idiot.

"Idiot", "imbecile", "moron" and "retard", for example, are all formerly-current and accepted, now arcane/obsolete terms in the medical community for patients with certain forms/levels of mental illness or under-development, which have since passed into strictly pejorative usage. I'm guessing that that statute is probably quite old. Old, obsolete statutes can be a real hoot to read today, like the old Florida statute prohibiting unmarried (or is that married?) women from making a parachute jump on a Sunday.

Now, if the statute referred to "fucking idiots", it would be clear as glass.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Let’s stick to “competence.” And merely being in a state mental health hospital is not a reflection of that person’s competence at the time. Like Hinckley, it may be a competent person who can’t get let out.

Yes, let's stick to competence. The original issue is whether the incompetent due to insanity should be allowed to vote. If Hinkley is now competent, then he is no longer insane. The question still remains for those who are currently insane.
BTW Hinkley is still legally insane of course. While the advice of the medical community is and should be the deciding factor, they are still merely advisors to the court. It was the court who deemed him insane and only the court can legally deem him sane.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If Hinkley is now competent, then he is no longer insane.

Not exactly; legal competency and legal sanity are two separate, albeit often overlapping, concepts. Sanity is more of an absolute; legally, you're either sane or you're not. Competency, on the other hand, requires a context: "competent to do "X". So, for example, a person may be competent to safely and capably prepare a meal of scrambled eggs and toast, but not competent to stand trial because he's not sufficiently capable of aiding his lawyer in his defense.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Does the legal concept of 'temporary insanity' not exist? If it does does that not imply that all insanity at least has the capacity to be ephemeral?

[jakee 1,267]

Quote

Right. And you selected a person whom doctors insist IS competent. And further demonstrated that while he was NOT competent at one point he is competent now and can be maintained at a level of competency that he has had for quite some time.

And just to clarify, while he was not competent, should he have been allowed to vote?



(Personally I'd say let everyone vote - idiots, lunatics and criminals included [There probably aren't enough idiots and lunatics who will actually vote {voluntarily and of their own accord} to make a difference and what is it people are afraid the convicted felons are going to do - organise a mass write in for an evil third party candidate?]. That said, some of your examples in this thread have been pretty wacky. Leave the diabetics out of it and base your argument on the actual merits of insane voters.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

I don't see a problem with an incompetent voting. Shouldn't they have their voice in government, as well?

Quote

some of your examples in this thread have been pretty wacky. Leave the diabetics out of it and base your argument on the actual merits of insane voters.

The reason I included diabetics in it was as a demonstration that mental illnesses are like most other illnesses – they are medical conditions that can be treated. Schizophrenia is much like Type I diabetes. It cannot be cured and can certainly cause altered mental status BUT it can be medically managed and treated to help the sufferer to live a fairly normal life.

I understand that it seems wacky to compare type I diabetes - a chronic medical condition that can be treated and managed with appropriate medical care - to schizophrenia - a chronic medical condition that can be treated and managed with appropriate medical care. It seems wacky because mental illness is generally viewed more as a personality defect for which nothing can be done versus a legitimate medical condition for which medical treatment is available.

That’s my point. Go down to the threshold issue and comparing diabetes with schizophrenia is not so much of a stretch.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Interesting question. It appears that Hinckley is indeed a competent adult at this point in time. Hinckley has been treated for thirty years and is petitioning for his release on the basis that he is and has been competent. His doctors are petitioning the court to free him from custodial care because his illness is controlled. Just like diabetes, there are plenty of mental illnesses that can be controlled. His doctors are saying he doesn’t need to be in a hospital anymore.

So why is a guy whom the medical community says is doing well (i.e., understands right from wrong, etc) being held up as an example of someone who shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Yes. I would suggest that Hinckley SHOULD be allowed to vote. He’s a human being with an illness that has been well controlled for decades now and done what he’s been required to do to prove he’s ready to return to society.

In Hinckley's case, since he is 'cured', he should now graduate to the penitentiary!


Chuck

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Interesting question. It appears that Hinckley is indeed a competent adult at this point in time. Hinckley has been treated for thirty years and is petitioning for his release on the basis that he is and has been competent. His doctors are petitioning the court to free him from custodial care because his illness is controlled. Just like diabetes, there are plenty of mental illnesses that can be controlled. His doctors are saying he doesn’t need to be in a hospital anymore.

So why is a guy whom the medical community says is doing well (i.e., understands right from wrong, etc) being held up as an example of someone who shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Yes. I would suggest that Hinckley SHOULD be allowed to vote. He’s a human being with an illness that has been well controlled for decades now and done what he’s been required to do to prove he’s ready to return to society.

In Hinckley's case, since he is 'cured', he should now graduate to the penitentiary!


Chuck

Of course not. He was judged not guilty.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In Hinckley's case, since he is 'cured', he should now graduate to the penitentiary!

He's not "cured" any more than a diabetic is "cured" by insulin and diet.

However, he was adjudged "not guilty." Why are you thinking that a person adjudged "not guilty" should be put in the penitentiary?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,267]

Quote

It seems wacky because mental illness is generally viewed more as a personality defect for which nothing can be done versus a legitimate medical condition for which medical treatment is available.

No, it seems wacky because when you're suffering from diabetes you're not insane. Well, you might be, but not simply because you have diabetes.

Quote

Go down to the threshold issue and comparing diabetes with schizophrenia is not so much of a stretch.

You think the threshold issue is whether or not mental illness is treatable? That's wacky.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

In Hinckley's case, since he is 'cured', he should now graduate to the penitentiary!

He's not "cured" any more than a diabetic is "cured" by insulin and diet.

However, he was adjudged "not guilty." Why are you thinking that a person adjudged "not guilty" should be put in the penitentiary?

Oops! Looks like I messed-up, there. Having not really followed Hinckley over the years, I called that one wrong. I wasn't aware, he was found 'not guilty'. Was that a 'not guilty by reason of insanity'?
thanks for enlightening me.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Interesting question. It appears that Hinckley is indeed a competent adult at this point in time. Hinckley has been treated for thirty years and is petitioning for his release on the basis that he is and has been competent. His doctors are petitioning the court to free him from custodial care because his illness is controlled. Just like diabetes, there are plenty of mental illnesses that can be controlled. His doctors are saying he doesn’t need to be in a hospital anymore.

As I am now aware! Thanks, for the enlightenment. I never really followed the 'case'.


Chuck

So why is a guy whom the medical community says is doing well (i.e., understands right from wrong, etc) being held up as an example of someone who shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Yes. I would suggest that Hinckley SHOULD be allowed to vote. He’s a human being with an illness that has been well controlled for decades now and done what he’s been required to do to prove he’s ready to return to society.

In Hinckley's case, since he is 'cured', he should now graduate to the penitentiary!


Chuck

Of course not. He was judged not guilty.

Thank you. I stand corrected.


Chuck