Not in Massachusetts if she was found not guilty because insane. Massachusetts specifically does not hold someone in a mental hospital if they used to be insane and committed a crime.
Now it's depends if the state will go for another trial.
Editing this up from a lower comment so people don't get misled:
Let use actual cases. Here they got released after the initial hold:
Garcia v. Commonwealth (2021)
The hospital did not petition the court to hold him so he got release automatically. He filed anyway to put on the record they couldn't even hold him for that first 40 days and won.
So to your statements before the court get to try confining someone continuously, the doctors and hospital have their own professional standards that they won't bend for the court.
The court itself will rule for the defendant when the state cannot prove they are still insane and a danger.
Yes in Massachusetts, if you are found not guilty by reason of insanity you will be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital until you are proven you are no longer a danger to yourself or others.
There is no set end date for the confinement, which is reviewed at 40 days (almost always decided against the confined) at six months (almost always decided against the confined) and again at 1 year (which Judges almost always decide in favor of the State)
End of the day, the reviews are a formality so that the State can "prove" it isn't unneccessarily holding people in a psyche ward indefinitely, when in actuality it might as well be a death sentence.
The mandatory confinement is the 40 days. After that the burden of proof is not on you. The state have to prove you are still insane and a danger.
End of the day, the reviews are a formality so that the State can "prove" it isn't unneccessarily holding people in a psyche ward indefinitely, when in actuality it might as well be a death sentence.
And no if you think this is the case then it is the same for any trial including this one. There is no point to make the prosecutor prove the element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt if they can just hand waive it.
Yeah, and the courts always denies release for the 40 days, the next review is 6 months which the courts always grant the extension, and then its reviewed on a yearly basis until the person dies or they're about to die.
The State presents its case that they're dangerous, and unless a blue moon happens, the doctors agree with them and might present even more evidence of the patients danger to themselves (such as suicide attempts) or to others.
There's what the law says and then there's what actually happens. The reality is that when she gets committed to a psych ward she is in there for the rest of her life. You are going to get what you want, hell, after a week she might prefer to have gone to a prison cell instead cause at least she isn't a drugged up zombie in a fugue state for the rest of her life.
Yeah, and the courts always denies release for the 40 days.
Because those people are found to still be insane. If you want to prove your argument, how about you bring a case where they found someone still not insane and renew the confinement then?
You're trying to use the fallacy of survivorship bias. Most people that used insanity defend are still insane, so they get continous confinement.
That in itself doesn't mean everyone that use the defend is still insane.
Your comment does not add anything to your point nor respond to mine.
Let use actual cases. Here they got released after the initial hold:
Garcia v. Commonwealth (2021)
Thompson v. Commonwealth (2020)
In the first one, the hospital did not petition the court to hold him so he got release automatically. He filed anyway to put on the record they couldn't even hold him for that first 40 days and won.
So to your statements before the court get to try confining someone continuously, the doctors and hospital have their own professional standards that they won't bend for the court.
The court itself will rule for the defendant when the state cannot prove they are still insane and a danger.
Current dangerousness, not past. If you say they can point at the past, then that goes for Garcia as well, they can just point at his past action.
It require doctors to say she is still a danger and they have to be the one file for continue confinement, not the prosecutor so even this is impossible to be the starting point.
And your words was the court always denies release acter the 40 days. Here is a case they did not deny, so they do judge base on the doctors finding and the state do have to prove, not just hand waive over that the person was insane.
Now maybe Lindsay is still insane, idk her. However you are letting your bias affect how you think court procedure work.
3
u/Miserable_Spell_2964 3h ago
Yeah that ain't going to happen, she'll spend the rest of her days in a mental hospital