Analysis Of In Defense Of The Insanity Defense

In the month of January 1992, Judge Laurence Gram Jr. was presiding over the Milwaukee County Circuit Court at the beginning of Jeffrey Dahmer’s trial. Defense Attorney Gerald Boyle represented the defendant Jeffrey Dahmer whilst District Attorney E. Michael McCann spoke for the state of Wisconsin. Dahmer was charged with murdering fifteen individuals. During the initial part of the court proceedings, Dahmer’s defense claimed that he was clinically insane. In due course, the jury had to decide whether this insanity claim was factual or not: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Did his admission of guilt founded on mental illness stand up in court or was he sane and guilty? Was he or was he not in control of himself when he murdered fifteen

The purpose of the insanity defense is to protect the defendants that are found to be mentally ill. Although insanity may be difficult to prove, it gives the opportunity for others to prove that they are not mentally competent to understand the severe degree of their actions. An accused that is not mentally stable, is not able to stand trial like every other criminal. They have to find a different approach during their trial. They cannot think rationally, and they are not in contact with reality so therefore, they have the chance to use the plea. The defense is idea to those who actually have a mental disorder or have a history of dealing with a mental disorder.

In 1981 Steven Steinberg was accused of murdering his wife Elena Steinberg by stabbing her twenty-six times in Scottsdale, Arizona (Guy, 2015). At the time of the murder, Steinberg was the one who called law enforcement to report an attempted break-in at his home, even though no signs of force entry were found at the scene. During that time, the case drew a lot of publicity in the state of Arizona; not only because it was a horrifying crime, but because it was a case that involved a murder while sleepwalking. When the police linked him to the murder of his wife, Steinberg did not deny killing his wife but argued that he was not responsible for her murder because he claimed that he did not remember what happened and that he was sleepwalking at the time he committed the crime. Despite inventing the story about an attempted break-in at his home, the jury found him not guilty on the basis of being temporarily insane at the time of the murder, and walked away as a free man (Guy, 2015).

The insanity defense was created to help protect people from the law, specifically those who due to serious mental illness could not be held accountable for their actions, regardless of how horrific they were. (Insanity, Religion, Terrorism 238) There should be no prejudice based on the mental deficiencies, incompetency, and mental illness of a person. Rather, the law should be malleable to be inclusive of everyone. The Constitution of United States represents the national framework of the government. The abolition of the insanity defense violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the Due Process Clause. Due Process Clause explicitly states no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”, due process meaning fair procedures. Within the Constitution also lies the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. To put a mentally ill or incompetent person on stand is a cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore although the public does not have a full comprehension of how the insanity defense works, in order to abide by the United States Constitution insanity defense MUST be available in a criminal matter.

It is within my opinion, that the insanity defense is used over excessively and is taking part in almost every defense to any crime. Offenders seem to have the knowledge to the use of this defense and will often provide a plea to guilty by insanity or temporary insanity, within the faith, to receive a reduced sentence. While insanity has to be a proven fact and a

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

“Your Honors, gentlemen of the jury: It would be easy for me to-day to play insanity, because the circumstances are such as to excite any man, and under the natural excitement of what is taking place to-day (I cannot speak English very well, but am trying to do so, because most of those here speak English), under the excitement which my trial causes me would justify me

Have you ever heard of the Insanity Defense? The insanity defense is when the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions because of a psychiatric disease or a psychotic episode during the act of the crime. For instance, the Durham rule can be used if the defendant is diagnosed with a mental illness that was present during the time or show his or hers medical history records to demonstrate the defendant’s insanity. In the book In Cold Blood, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, was sentenced to death for the murder of the Clutter Family, on November 15, 1959. Perry, who was the one that killed the whole family,could be eligible for the insanity plea if he has shown any signs of being mentally unstable during the act of the crime.

The history of the insanity plea is highly extensive. The highly controversial plea has given serial killers, rapists, and criminals the opportunity to get a reduced sentence if they prove that they are not mentally stable. The insanity plea has been around longer than some people may think, dating all the way back to the Roman Empire. Some of the current tests that determine if someone is legally insane are the M’Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code. People who would take these tests are well known killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.

Throughout history, there have been many criminals who used the insanity defence to receive a fair trial, but some of of these people were not actually insane. However, in the case the 1989 Montreal massacre, Canadian journalists medicalized Marc Lepine's deviance in their writing techniques to divert the public’s attention from the event. According to Horwitz (1981), the medicalization of criminal behaviour “refers to the tendency to define deviance as a manifestation of an underlying sickness, to find the causes of deviance within the individual rather than in the social structure. . .” (p. 750). The type of deviances that can be viewed under the term “medicalization” is mental sickness and child abuse. For example, some journalists referred

The insanity defense of Andrea Yates: The country was absolutely appalled when it heard that Yates, a mother of five children, had killed each of her children resulting in a horrific family slaughter. There were extremely polarized feelings about this case- sympathy (concluding

In criminal cases where an insanity defense is used, the defense must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not responsible for his or her actions during a mental health breakdown. There are two forms of an insanity defense, cognitive and volitional. In order for an individual to meet the requirements for cognitive insanity it must be proven that the defendant had to be so impaired by a mental disease at the time of the act that they did not know the nature of what they were doing. If they are fully aware of their actions, one must prove that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. Volitional insanity, also known as irresistible impulse, states that the defendant is able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time, but suffered from a mental disease that made them unable to control themselves. Volitional insanity is common in crimes of vengeance, where very few states allow the use of this defense. The insanity defense should not be confused with incompetency. In incompetency cases, the individual is not able to understand the nature and consequences of the case, nor adequately able to help an attorney with his or her defense. The insanity defense reflects the approach that an individual who can’t acknowledge the consequences of their actions should not be punished for the crime. In most jurisdictions a professional is bought in to determine if the defendant was not able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time of the

The insanity defense is a very complex criminal defense plea. Over hundreds of years, the insanity defense has evolved. The correct term for the insanity defense in a criminal case will be “not guilty by reasons of insanity” (NGRI). Many people have used the insanity defense without success. When someone uses the NGRI defense it is argued that a mental illness took full effect leading to an individual to commit a criminal act. Many have tried to use such a defense, yet one after another they have failed. The insanity defense is one of the hardest, if not the hardest defense to use. Pleading insanity can be tricky. One cannot simply plead insanity and expect for it to work.

In 1972, the American Law Institute (a panel of legal experts) developed a new rule for insanity as part of the Model Penal Code. This rule says that a defendant is not responsible

When learning about the legal elements of a crime, it is stated that in order to establish a crime was committed Actus Reus and Mens Rea must be shown. There is however, a default in this procedure. The Free Dictionary defines insanity as “Insanity a legal term for mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts.” This is one of many legal definitions of insanity, and as you can see a key part of this definition is “not responsible for his or her acts.” How can we then decipherer Mens Rea ? When making an insanity defense, you are making the argument that the defendant had no Mens Rea during the crime or even a persisting condition. This is where controversy begins, and many debates start to rise about the circumstances of using this as a defense. As studies continue, and more cases are brought out using the insanity defense the increase in demand for a consistent diagnosis is fast approaching. One of the many defaults with cases with this particular defense is, there is never one diagnosis, and different events lead up to other areas. There is only one repeating factor that all insanity defenses have in common, which is the lack of Mens Rea.