[Altered Moment]

One thing I find troubling is this case-

A man is acquitted of first degree robbery because he was taking xanax and prozac. Committed several robberies in a few days. It actually goes against the statute.

Psychiatric Drug Facts with Dr. Peter Breggin - Court finds antidepressants cause criminal behavior

The defendant is charged [in count __] with robbery in the first degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery or of immediate flight therefrom, (he/she) or another participant in the crime <insert appropriate subsection:>

§ 53a- 134 (a) (1): causes serious physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime.

§ 53a- 134 (a) (2): is armed with a deadly weapon.

§ 53a- 134 (a) (3): uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument.

§ 53a- 134 (a) (4): displays or threatens the use of what (he/she) represents by (his/her) words or conduct to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm."

Criminal Jury Instructions 6.4-1

If someone is in a meth amphetamine induced psychosis and commits a violent act is he not responsible for his actions? You could argue that he is an addict and his friends influenced him into doing the drugs so he is not responsible. Much in the same way a doctor advises a mentally ill patient to take meds. Should someone who is mentally ill and not taking meds be exonerated from committing a violent act because they are mentally ill. A mass murderer may have been horribly abused as a child. When do things like this become a legitimate defense even to the point of acquittal?
I believe very strongly in rehabilitation and recovery and it is pretty obvious that our criminal justice systems does a horrible job. Flat out doesn’t do the job. I don’t at all believe in forced meds or forced treatment even in prison. As part of my philosophy I don’t label anyone as evil. One of the main tenets of justice has always been holding people accountable for their actions even with mitigating circumstances. We have a duty and right to protect ourselves from the violent acts of others and to protect property.

Do we really want to go down the road where "the devil made me do it" or "God told me to" is grounds for acquittal in a murder case? Defense attorneys are going down this road. There is the insanity plea but the person is still held accountable.

[geis]

A successful insanity plea doesn't mean that the court is saying the person is not responsible for their actions; it just means that mitigating factors (in this case, something that sounds a lot like mania and/or psychosis induced by antidepressants, which is a well-documented phenomenon) made the defendant unable to control his actions and/or understand the illegality of them. (I'm not sure what CT's definition of legal insanity is, but most states use the M'Naghten Test, the irresistible impulse test, or some combination of the two in their statutes.)

This is different than using illegal drugs, too. One presumes that in the case in question, the medications were legally prescribed by the defendant's doctor, who judged that the risks outweighed the potential benefits. When a doctor prescribes a medication, most patients assume that means it's reasonably safe to take said medication. This is not the case with illegal drug use: those drugs are not shown to be safe, nor are they legally prescribed.

Also, bear in mind that a successful affirmative defense does not mean there are no consequences for the criminal behavior. A successful plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect means the defendant will be confined indefinitely to a psychiatric unit or hospital. Often, they end up confined for much longer than they would've if they'd been sentenced to prison for the crimes they committed, and they have fewer legal rights and protections than convicted felons. Contrary to what you see on TV, and insanity defense does not get you off free.

[Altered Moment]

Originally Posted by geis

A successful insanity plea doesn't mean that the court is saying the person is not responsible for their actions; it just means that mitigating factors (in this case, something that sounds a lot like mania and/or psychosis induced by antidepressants, which is a well-documented phenomenon) made the defendant unable to control his actions and/or understand the illegality of them. (I'm not sure what CT's definition of legal insanity is, but most states use the M'Naghten Test, the irresistible impulse test, or some combination of the two in their statutes.)

This is different than using illegal drugs, too. One presumes that in the case in question, the medications were legally prescribed by the defendant's doctor, who judged that the risks outweighed the potential benefits. When a doctor prescribes a medication, most patients assume that means it's reasonably safe to take said medication. This is not the case with illegal drug use: those drugs are not shown to be safe, nor are they legally prescribed.

Also, bear in mind that a successful affirmative defense does not mean there are no consequences for the criminal behavior. A successful plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect means the defendant will be confined indefinitely to a psychiatric unit or hospital. Often, they end up confined for much longer than they would've if they'd been sentenced to prison for the crimes they committed, and they have fewer legal rights and protections than convicted felons. Contrary to what you see on TV, and insanity defense does not get you off free.

Apparently in this case the defense argued "temporary insanity".

And apparently I misunderstood the case because I thought acquittal meant no consequences. It seems alcohol abuse was involved too. A legal drug. I don't think the court looks at alcohol intoxication as a defense. Seems like it would be hard to prove xanax and prozac caused the behaviors.

I did misunderstand the case though and he is facing consequences and perhaps not good ones.

Judge Accepts Prozac Defense - Hartford Courant

Doyle stressed that DeAngelo is not walking free after his acquittal Thursday by reason of mental disease or defect.

Arnold ordered him committed to the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services for further evaluation. DeAngelo, who was previously free after posting bail of more than $200,000, was taken to the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown pending his next court appearance on April 6.

Based on further evaluation, DeAngelo could be committed to Whiting, the state's maximum-security mental hospital, for more than 20 years, housed in a community- based treatment program for a lesser amount of time or discharged on his own recognizance.

it will be interesting to see how the courts and juries handle these types of defenses. I guarantee defense attorneys will use them more and more.

[Nammu]

I'd say the guy had well paid representation, he did have the resorces to pay 200,000 for bail, most people in that position get legal aid and get thrown in jail.

I don't think its a precedent but a matter of money. Sadly our court system is like our government, money buys influence. He'll most likely be out long before the 20 years are up.

Originally Posted by zinco14532323

One thing I find troubling is this case-

A man is acquitted of first degree robbery because he was taking xanax and prozac. Committed several robberies in a few days. It actually goes against the statute.

Psychiatric Drug Facts with Dr. Peter Breggin - Court finds antidepressants cause criminal behavior


Criminal Jury Instructions 6.4-1

If someone is in a meth amphetamine induced psychosis and commits a violent act is he not responsible for his actions? You could argue that he is an addict and his friends influenced him into doing the drugs so he is not responsible. Much in the same way a doctor advises a mentally ill patient to take meds. Should someone who is mentally ill and not taking meds be exonerated from committing a violent act because they are mentally ill. A mass murderer may have been horribly abused as a child. When do things like this become a legitimate defense even to the point of acquittal?
I believe very strongly in rehabilitation and recovery and it is pretty obvious that our criminal justice systems does a horrible job. Flat out doesn’t do the job. I don’t at all believe in forced meds or forced treatment even in prison. As part of my philosophy I don’t label anyone as evil. One of the main tenets of justice has always been holding people accountable for their actions even with mitigating circumstances. We have a duty and right to protect ourselves from the violent acts of others and to protect property.

Do we really want to go down the road where "the devil made me do it" or "God told me to" is grounds for acquittal in a murder case? Defense attorneys are going down this road. There is the insanity plea but the person is still held accountable.

I hope I'm getting the gist of this right. If so then... I think we should not want to go down that road. Much of law is precedent. That sounds like a very dangerous precedent. The most obvious possibility being someone who is intent on a crime and plans it with a ready made defense based on legal precedent. Honestly though it's tough to call. People use stress, abuse, or perceived danger as a legal defense. Sometimes it's legitimate and sometimes it is very questionable.

[geis]

Guys, before you flip out about precedent, do a little research. Insanity pleas are very rare. It varies slightly state to state, but on average, less than 1% of criminal defendants try the NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) plea. Around 70% of defendants withdraw their NGRI pleas once experts appointed by the state told the court that they were legally sane. Only 0.26% of NGRI pleas are successful. That's an incredibly small number, especially considering the number of people who go through the US legal system.

Drug use, as I said previously, does not qualify someone for an NGRI plea.

The definition of legal insanity is much narrower than the definition of mental illness. If you have the mental faculties to plan a crime, you don't meet the standard for legal insanity. The likelihood that someone could successfully fake insanity well enough to successfully plead insanity is very slim. Hannibal Lecter notwithstanding, most people simply aren't savvy enough to pull that off.

I'm not saying the system for NGRI pleas is flawless, but without fail, every time I see a discussion about it outside of legal circles, it's filled with unnecessary alarmism fueled by lack of accurate information.

[Altered Moment]

What I found unusual about this case was the fact that it was prozac and xanax that were found to cause the temporary insanity. Not that he was mentally ill.

Like i said though i jumped the gun when I read acquittal. he is facing pretty serious consequences. And he can still be charged separately for the other two robberies.

[geis]

SSRI's causing mania and/or psychosis is a well-documented phenomenon. Why should insanity caused by legally prescribed drugs be treated any differently than insanity caused by organic brain dysfunction? As far as we know, it's the same neurochemical process, and since the defendant took the drugs with a doctor's prescription (i.e., not with the intention of getting high), it's really no different than if he had a non-drug-induced manic or psychotic episode.

[*PeaceLily*]

I clicked on this and had no idea it would be so triggering for me. What are the chances that the court case would be about this!! :-/ I don't find this court case troubling.I find it more troubling that the majority of people- including at one time myself, don't know how powerful ssris are. They're given out so readily that people think they're relatively benign. no one even knows precisely how they work, and there's no subtlety to medication. It's not a precise science. Also itis not true that boosting serotonin i automatically good. Serotonin is also linked to impulse control and anger- you can actually end up with elevatd energy, but full of anger- a dangerous combination!

I have had unbelievable mixed episodes due to taking ssris for many years. I'm taking a complete character change whilst taking them. I would try to literally get out of my skin. I was in a domestically abusive situation which blamed me for the reactions, and therefore I was constantly on and off ssris having mania for 7 years!! I didn't often get to leave the house, but i remember times when I ran away and I do remember stealing during those periods, so I was lucky not to have been caught.

Somewhat strangely, given that the abusive situation was with my parents, I have heard that my father took ssris- sertraline and he had an extreme manic episode to the point of stripping naked, drinking constantly,( he litrally never drank prior,) and hallucinating blue men who were telling him to hurt himself! It seems likely that I inherit the bipolarity or 'allergy' to ssris from himThere;s evidence to now suggest that ssris can cause mania in people who don't even have bipolar. It's not certain whether I have bipolar but ssri induced mania is now in my medical notes.

Iff I hadn't lived that for so many years, I too would be dubious upon reading these stories.However, I have lived it so I know this is only the tip of the iceberg. The akathisia and mania they cause is real, and akathisia is now what they think is behind the homicides whilst taking ssris. It's well known akathisia/mania can cause homicides ans yet akathisia and mania are listed as side effects, and suicde is on there, and yet so far, they have got away with not putting homicide on there.

It's weird that people can acknowledge that ssris could make someone more suicidal and yet have issues acknowledging that they could have other unwanted effects on the human mind too. I know how painful it is to be blamed for somehting you weren't able to control- it cost me many years of my life, and I was a conventional straight A 18 year old graduate when it began. It still is so disorientating and painful to think about and I think it always will be.

I believe these people because I have lived it, and I am glad it's getting more acknowledgement. If you google ssri horror stories and have an open mind, you'll see that this stuff is powerful beyond belief . I'd ask those who are dubious to have an open mind because I lost years of my life having those episodes, and it makes it doubly painful to think that most people won't even take it seriously or believe me. I try now whenever I haven't lived a situation or don't understand someone's situation, to give that person the compassion and belief that I would want in that same situation

( I don't want to put people off who are getting a good response to these meds though. I am just telling you my experience)

xxxxx

Xxx

[Altered Moment]

Originally Posted by geis

SSRI's causing mania and/or psychosis is a well-documented phenomenon. Why should insanity caused by legally prescribed drugs be treated any differently than insanity caused by organic brain dysfunction? As far as we know, it's the same neurochemical process, and since the defendant took the drugs with a doctor's prescription (i.e., not with the intention of getting high), it's really no different than if he had a non-drug-induced manic or psychotic episode.

'
I don't think that SSRI induced psychosis is well documented.

SSRI induced mania or hypomania is pretty well studied. I believe it is much more likely to happen in someone already somewhere on the scale of bi polar as opposed to uni polar.

In fact the DSM V has broadened it's definitions saying AD induced mania or hypo mania along with other things could give you a diagnosis somewhere on the bi polar spectrum. "Switched mania", "Mixed Mania".

I have had AD triggered hypo mania. At one time I had a diagnosis of bi polar II. The last time I was diagnosed I didn't tell them everything so came out with MDD. In reality I think I am somewhere on the bi polar scale. AD induced hypo mania being one piece of evidence among others.

The neuro chemical processes are not really known whether it be drug induced mania and psychosis or natural mania and psychosis. And no way to look into the guys brain and see what is going on and what causes what. They know much much more than ever but it is not well understood.

*PeaceLily*- I said troubling because I initially mistakenly thought there were no consequences.

I say unusual because I am willing to bet that it is unusual in case law.

Its a difficult area for the law. I have always believed that organic brain dysfunction plays a role in much crime and the system has never really taken that into account and tried to help people. Or if it is a case of legally prescribed drugs that have caused it then it should be taken into account. Things like that are hard to prove.

I have always believed that all prisoners should be helped and rehabilitated. Our system is horrible. In many cases rehabilitation is not possible. At least by what is known today.

Even the worse mass murderer I would never say is evil. I think there is something seriously wrong with them and it may very well be organic brain dysfunction.

We do have a right and a duty to protect ourselves and hold people accountable however.

[Altered Moment]

There are difficult issues we face. We know a large part of the prison population has alcoholism/addiction/mental health issues. I would like to see early intervention within the criminal justice system to avoid putting people in prison. This brings up the issue of forced treatment.

If you have committed no crime or even if you are suicidal I am totally absolutely against forced treatment. As a member of AA I have always been against forcing people to go to meetings. I think it violates AA philosophy and traditions. On the other hand I have seen many court ordered people decide to stay and have lasting sobriety. It changed their lives. Drug courts have been effective but it is forced treatment. I guess once you are in the criminal justice system you have given up some rights.

God knows that if someone keeps committing crimes and ends up in prison they are screwed. They have to join a gang for protection, their jailors oppress and abuse them. They get institutionalized. There is not help when they get out. They stand very little chance. I would like to see them get the proper empathetic help they need. With the goal of successful reintegration into society. This would mean forced treatment in most cases. There are groups and help for those who want it voluntarily but it is hard for them to separate from the rest of the inmates.

[*PeaceLily*]

All I know is that during those episodes I genuinely had no control over my behaviour. It is like being possessed. Therefore, accountability becomes a much more dubious area if someone genuinely could not have controlled what they were doing. The brain is much more fragile than we realise- you only have to look at people with dementia or brain damage to realise that, and I found out the hard way that my mind which I had thought was so individual to me was nothing more than a collection of neurons, and I saw how you can actually have no control in certain scenarios...it's a scary prospect and I can see why people don't want to swallow it. No one feels safe in this world as it is, but they tend to get a sense of safety through believing that they can always control their own mind. Those who have had my experience on medication know that that control is actually easily smashed to pieces. I presume those who have been brainwashed realise a similar thing. Funnily enough, realising that 'safety' and 'control' can be taken away from you in ways beyond what most people ever experience, is a key element of post traumatic stress which I also suffer from. Most people think their personality is indestructible, and I learnt the hard way that it's a very shaky construct.

I'm not sure whether people are more on the bipolar scale if they react like this. that parts still up for debate. It depends who you ask.Many, possibly most people who reacted like I did probably would get a diagnosis of bipolar, but my psychiatrist believes ssris can induce the mania because he has encountered people who this is true for. in my instance, there is a strong possibility I have bipolar or something on that spectrum, and that I inherited it from my father. I had psychotic features on the medication, but I ordinarily have no psychotic issues whatsoever. I also had self injury issues- and I never ordinarily have that, so the meds can cause someone who normally just gets 'hypomanic' to get seriously manic, and it is normally a mixed episode too which is worse.

Many people who commit these crimes whilst taking ssris could actually have bipolar and not know about it.Most people who have bipolar type 11 don't know that they have it, and they never ask you about it when they give you the ssri medication. I think that reactions to ssris is one of the main ways peopel get diagnosed with bipolar.I suppose they go by timings of taking the medication and past character profile whilst discerning culpability in the court room. I acted so different than I had acted before I took them that if I hadn't been in a domestic abuse situation and blamed for it, it would have been obvious to anyone around me, and they would have put me in a hospital.

It is interesting to see the acknowledgement this phenomenon is getting in the press and the courts. Thankyou for posting it xxx

[*PeaceLily*]

I suppose I'm coming at it from a different angle. i believe that people with mental illness who are taking ssris can commit crimes that have nothing to do with their mental illness and everything to do with the effects of the medication. So therefore, in certain cases talk of any mental illness becomes irrelevant if it can be substantiated that even if they do have a mental illness, this particular behaviour wasn't caused by that mental illness.
For instance, I had ocd and body dysmorphia prior to my reactions to medications- and yet they had literally nothing to do with the way I acted whilst having side effects to medication

If such a link can be strongly made in a given case, then no I don't think there should be criminal consequences for that person at all, because they can't be held accountable for a reaction they couldn't control. Plus, if they don't take the meds anymore, they aren't a threat to society.

I suppose proof is in the pudding.No more ssris has meant no more extreme agitated manic side effects for me. it stopped once the ssris stopped.

xxx

[Altered Moment]

You make very good points. I am sure it is hard to sort things out with you and your Dad and your issues. I won't argue with you about that, cuz I dunno. I take you at your word.

I know exactly what it is like to have no control. When I go into a very severe depression I have absolutely no control. It just happens. I have not control over when it ends. I just snap out of it like a switch got flipped. That is exactly how it feels too. I do get hypomania but it is never that bad. My issue is depression and anxiety so it is not likely it will get me caught up in the criminal justice system. I have been taking SSRi's and SSNRI's for twenty years and have never had adverse reactions other than some hypomania. That's just me though.

Its the DSM V that is saying AD induced mania related to bi polar. It is controversial though. Its their bible. I guess the only real issue would be whether it would be worth it to take a mood stabilizer or an AAP. It would be up to a doc to decide how severe the symptoms are and what is going on. In your case a diagnosis and more meds might be a huge mistake but you say there is a strong possibility of bi polar in you and your dad.

If someone commits murder in a severe psychotic state and due to brain chemistry had no control of their behavior should they walk away with no consequences? What should we do? In this specific case there were three first degree robberies and alcohol was a factor.

If someone can't be held accountable for a reaction they could not control that could include a lot of cases that have nothing to do with meds. The more we learn about these issues the more it will be argued as a defense.

A girl posted recently that her brother was having a severe manic episode with a ton of anger and agitation and was not on meds. He was taking a baseball bat to everything in the house. She was very scared for her safety and wanted to call the police and have him committed. The mother wouldn't go along. He would be forced on meds then but he would stop them when he got out. Even if he couldn't control his behavior doesn't she have to protect her safety and the safety of others somehow?

[Altered Moment]

The neuro chemical processes are not really known whether it be drug induced mania and psychosis or natural mania and psychosis. And no way to look into the guys brain and see what is going on and what causes what. They know much much more than ever but it is not well understood.

I want to clarify that statement. There is a large body of evidence that points to genetics, and biological processes in many disorders. That doesn't mean it is true for all cases or that meds are the only answer. What I mean is they don't understand it in detail at a molecular, genetic, neuro pathway, receptor, level. They have lots of evidence that points them in certain directions for further study.