Essay Ill or Evil: The Insanity Defense

My conclusion is that yes, Yates is sick, but I feel a strong possibility of her understanding the wrongness of her actions to the rest of society but in her opinion acted in the greater good based on religiously psychotic feeling of heaven and hell which was a foundation of making a decision to take her children’s lives while understanding it was wrong and should have been dealt with by a swifter and stronger hand of justice. My opinion aside this is the conclusion and information brought forth by unbiased research as to the case and analysis of Yates. Only one of a twelve mental health experts who testified concluded that the Yates was legally sane when she drowned her five children in the family bathtub.

Her trial, which started 10 months after the murders, was lead by what towns’ people called the “dream team” of lawyers. The jury had 12 men on it that believed that she was not guilty because after they showed her the skull of her father in court, she fainted, and because she was a girl. They thought that no girl was capable of committing such a crime.

On July 5, 2011, during all deliberations Casey was found guilty for false information that she was providing. However, she was found Not Guilty for 1st degree murder, Child Abuse,

In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub in her home. This was very disturbing news. I am a native Houstonian. I was at home that day. The television was on and will never forget the news breaking announcements that broke the story of a homicide in Clear Lake. All the information the reporters had was a mother killed all her children then called the police to report it. The full story and the details that lead to this tragedy did not unfold until years later. It was sad because as details unfolded if Andrea Yates had been treated properly and followed her doctors

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.

Insanity, by its dictionary definition, is the derangement of the mind. (Dictionary.com) It is used in everyday contexts, when people say “You are insane for doing that trick on your dirt bike ” or “ The traffic getting out of the game was insane last night!”. However the real definition, written by Cornell University Law School states that “A person accused of a crime can acknowledge that they committed the crime, but argue that they are not responsible for it because of their mental illness, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity." The insanity defense is traditionally classified as an excuse defense, in contrast with justification defenses like self-defense. This classification

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.

Caylee Anthony was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy, on July fifthtenth. Her body was found in a wooded area near her home on December eleventh. Casey Anthony was later arrested for child neglect. The jury should have charged and sentenced Casey with the murder of Caylee for these reasons: she lied to the police multiple times during her integration, for example her saying that Caylee was kidnapped by her nanny, another reason being that there were no other suspects that had the motive to partake in this murder, lastly the medical records all point back to Casey for more reasons

Aileen’s attorneys managed to obtain a plea agreement for her, where she would plead guilty to six charges of murder and receive six life sentences to be served consecutively. One states attorney held out stating that Aileen should receive the death penalty, and on January 14, 1992, Aileen’s trial began for the murder of her first victim, Richard Mallory. On January 27, after only two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of first degree murder. The judge sentenced Aileen to death on January 31, 1992. She did not stand trial again, instead pleading no contest to the rest of the murder charges and was sentenced to death on each one. The seventh victim was never found. (Hamilton (1993).

Casey was cleared of all the charges that were in connection to the first degree murder that she was facing. Casey was also fine for each false statement she gave the jurors.

The word insane is a legal term. Because research has identified many different mental illnesses of varying severities, it is now too simplistic to describe a severely mentally ill person merely as insane. The federal law states that insanity is a fair defense if " at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendants as a result of sever mental disease or defect was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts"(Knowles). The American

The problem with this defense is that insanity here is either examined from a legal angle or a psychoanalytical one which involves talking to people and having them take tests. There is however, no scientific proof confirming the causal relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior based on a deeper neurological working of the brain sciences. The psychiatrist finds himself/herself in a double bind where with no clear medical definition of mental illness, he/she must answer questions of legal insanity- beliefs of human rationality, and free will instead of basing it on more concrete scientific facts. Let me use a case study to elaborate my argument that law in this country continues to regard insanity as a moral and legal matter rather than ones based on scientific analysis.

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.

"Insanity is defined as a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or conforming to social standards." (Insanity, pg. 1) It is used in court to state that the defendant was not aware of what he/she was doing at the time of the crime, due to mental illnesses. But insanity is a legal, not a medical, definition. There is a difference between mental illness and going insane. Many problems are raised by the existence of the insanity defense. For example, determining the patient's true mental illness (whether they are faking or not), placement of the mentally ill after trial, the credibility of the psychological experts, the percentage of cases that are actually successful,