Feinberg Court Case

There are a lot of courses of action that have to be taken when it comes to the plea. Regardless of all the processes that have to be done, it is better for a mentally ill defendant to seek this alibi. It is imperative for the accused to try to give a justification for their actions in order to avoid getting possible jail time. With the diagnosis of a mental health professional, they are able to provide verification of their mental illness. The insanity defense is the only defense that they are supplied with to defend their position in a case. According to the article, Insanity Defense: Proposals

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

This defence was originally known as the insanity defence, it was changed to NCRMD in the Criminal Code in 1992 (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015). Review boards must take the mental condition of the accused, the safety of the public, the reintegration of the accused into society, and the other needs of the accused into account when making a disposition after the trial, these include absolute discharge, conditional discharge or detention in a

The New York State Senate today passed legislation (S.1822), sponsored by Senator Frank Padavan (R-C, Bellerose), that would allow juries to find defendants "guilty but mentally ill" in cases where they believe the defendant may have been mentally ill at the time of the crime, but should still be held responsible for his or her actions.

There are thousands on top of thousands of crimes committed by the mentally ill, and nowadays pleading guilty is seen as a loop hole or a way to shorten your sentence and make the jury feel bad for the defendant. Take Jane Toppan for example. A nurse at a private practice, she racked up dozens of victims between 1885 and 1901. She would experiment different medicine and different dosages to patients. When they were about die she got into bed with them and held them close, feeling their lives slip from them. She got sexual satisfaction out of this, so she pled guilty by reason of insanity. She would live out the rest of her life in a minimum security prison where she was treated well. Juana Barraza, a Mexican wrestler aka “the Old Lady Killer”, killed as many as 49 elderly ladies in the 1990s. Later caught in 2003 and sentenced to prison for 759 years. She was excused from death row by reason of insanity. Sometimes the system does work though, like in the case of 21 year old Jessica Stasinousky and 19 year old Valerie Parashumti. The two women bludgeoned a 16 year old girl to death in 2008. They pled guilty by reason of being temporarily

“A young African-American man shot and killed an Alabama police officer in 1981. He was examined in jail and found to be psychotic then and at the time of the killing. In 1982 the Alabama Lunacy Commission found him competent to stand trial, and he was sentenced to death. He was consistently described as psychotic in prison records; but another state forensic evaluation in 1988 again found him competent. After reviewing his records and examining him, I concluded that he had been psychotic when he killed the officer and was psychotic still. A federal appeals court judge ruled that the original trial had been unconstitutional because the defendant was not competent at the time. The prosecutor declined to retry him, and he was sent to a state mental hospital.”(Beck)

(2015). Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37(4) ProQuest, Accessed 12 March 2017. This article focuses on the past, present and future of insanity defense. It is also based on the assumption that at the time the crime was committed, the defendant was not suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of differentiating right from wrong behavior and making them not legally accountable for the crime. This is a good and interesting article to me also because its easy to understand and read. This article gets straight to the point and gives full information of what the author is trying to say. I will be using this article in my project because I feel that with having a past, present and future article that is involved with insanity defense it will create good background for my reader and will be very interesting to read

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Criminal defendants who are constituted being legally insane cannot be convicted of charges arising from a specific mental defect or disability. (The M'Naghten Rule, ) The M'Naghten Courts have used legal tests to determine whether a defendant is legally insane, depending on the jurisdiction. These tests include the M'Naghten Rule, the Irresistible Impulse Test, and the Model Penal Code Test.

In the video “A Crime of Insanity” Murdock and Navasky present the case of Ralph Tortorici, a young man who brought a rifle and a hunting knife to State University of New York. Specifically, Murdock and Navasky presents Ralph’s story and trial. However, viewers have to ask themselves is Ralph mentally insane or is Ralph criminally responsible for his actions? Although some people believe that Ralph is either mentally insane or criminally responsible, Murdock and Navasky provide insight of mental competency and if Ralph is fit to stand on trial. In sum, then, their view is that is it fair to have a trial if someone fits the legal definition of mental competency but, is not mental competent to a psychiatrist. In this paper I summarize Ralph

Literacy and competency are essential to these criminal investigations. Any false allegations, misjudgment or misunderstanding of the case can set a criminal free within seconds. “The layman claims that sane men are escaping responsibility for their crimes on the plea of insanity by reason of the venality of experts, the strong and corrupt partisanship of counsel for the refense, and the incompetency of the judge and the prosecuting attorney” (Insanity and Criminal Responsibility). There are many individuals who are involved in the sanctions of these cases and although they maintain proper credibility, the cases will prosper according to their beliefs and findings. It is understood that mental health professionals, physicians and psychologists stand ground in front of the jury with hopes of proving the individual sane or insane. “The insanity defense traces its roots back to the 1843 assassination attempt on British Prime Minister Robert Peel. In this case, a psychotic individual named Daniel M’Naghten intentionally and with premeditation killed an assistant to a prime minister of England because he believed he was being persecuted. The defendant plead insanity at the trial. The prosecution attempted to prove sanity by illustrating M’Nagten’s behavior in planning and executing the attack. Several physicians testified as to the defendant’s even though they never examined the defendant; their conclusions were based on hearing the testimony and observing the defendant’s behavior. After the judge gave weight to the physician’s opinion, the prosecution agreed to stop the case and the defendant was declared insane” (The John Hincklney Trial). In other words, insanity cases are in the hands of professionals that are able to evaluate, analyze and conclude based on behavior, excluding mental illness. Although these processes change drastically over time, the basis of the cases will always be

When it comes to judging cases in the legal system, things get tricky due to the imbalance between psychology and law. Psychology acknowledges that disorders have degrees; however, the law uses the method of sane or insane. Due to this, “not guilty by reason of insanity” is used and one the most famous cases we see this in is the case of Andrea Yates. In my essay, I will explain the basics related to her case and my personal opinion on this case.

Because of this, it is common for people to think the plea is more prevalent in cases than it actually is. It is extremely rare for an insanity plea to succeed and the public is unaware of that. Researcher Michael Faultstich (1984) wanted to examine which factors determine whether or not lay individuals believe an insanity plea. Faulstich created a study in which he approached people at shopping malls and had them react to a newspaper article. The articles were written about people who were either male or female, had harmed a male or female, had a victim who lived or died and had a psychiatric history or not. These factors varied article to article and were used to determine when the public is okay with the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. Faulstich found that whether or not the victim died and the psychiatric history of a defendant had the greatest affect on the outcome of the case. The public was more likely to accept the plea if the victim had died and the defendant had a history of mental illness. The women who participated in the study were more likely to sympathize with the defendant if he had a psychiatric history. All of these factors show how the public’s view on the not guilty by reason of insanity plea can be skewed. The participants did not have a medical expert explain the nature of a defendant’s case or point out specific examples of the illness in the individual. Overall, the public were much more likely to credit breaking a law to psychiatric history than the courts. Once again these findings demonstrate how important it is to sway the jurors opinion, not necessarily provide proof of illness (1984). If people can sympathize with the defendant then it is much easier to hand down that verdict. Primal Fear shows that when jurors hear about previous psychological issues, they are more likely to rule in favor of the defendant. Aaron Stampler

A chi-square test for independence was used to compare the conditions of the defendant’s mental illness and the verdict that participants have chosen. The results indicated that for the defendant’s age (13, 17, or 21), there was not any significant difference of how participants chose the guilty or NGRI verdict, "x" ^"2" " " ("2,N=148" )"=.70,p=.706 " . However, for the defendant’s mental illness, there was a significant difference of participants choosing the NGRI verdict for schizophrenia than clinical depression, "x" ^"2" " " ("1,N=148" )"=4.55,p=.033". As shown in Figure 1, there is a difference in the count of individuals who have chosen the guilty verdict for depression and the schizophrenia. For depression, there was a count of 55 participants who sentenced a defendant with depression the guilty verdict, as compared to the 21 participants who have given the NGRI verdict. For the schizophrenia condition, whereas more participants (40) chose the guilty verdict, 32 participants chose the NGRI verdict. For participants who chose the guilty verdict, when asked what sentence they would give the defendant (e.g., imprisonment, death penalty, or other forms of treatment such as hospitalization, mental institution), 45 participants in the

The Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also stated that the ability of a psychologist to testify as an expert witness was based on knowledge and experience, not just the title of