Insanity And The Insanity Defense

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.

According to Psychology Today (2012), the insanity defense is defined as an individual who is being charged of a crime that can recognize that he or she committed the crime, but argues that they are not responsible for it because of their mental breakdown during the crime, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity.” While this defense is considered to be a legal strategy, it can also be seen as an indication of what society may believe; “it reflects society 's belief that the law should not

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.

The Insanity defense is mentioned as confusing to the psychiatric and legal concept. Furthermore, it is explained that the word “insane” is more of a legal word, then a medical term, and therefor to prove a person or a criminal insane, one must find the mental condition, of a criminal, severely impaired to the point of losing one’s free will. A psychiatrist may be or may not able to determine such illness, and a jury’s decision solely based on a psychiatrists’ opinion may be grounded on unreliable evidence. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

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.

The first criminal defense is pleading insanity which is an affirmative defense. Insanity is a “legal term rather than a medical one, and indicates a condition that renders the affected person incapable of rational thought, thereby removing criminal culpability” (Pollock, 2013). This means that a defendant is not responsible for their actions due to having mental health issues. If a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, but is found to be legally insane; they will still serve their sentence but with a lesser severe punishment. Once a defendant pleads insanity, they are often required to have a mental examination. When a defendant is in a court of law, they may claim that they were as mentally impaired with illness as to be “insane” at the time that they were committing the illegal act (Pollock, 2013). However, when pleading insanity it can also create issues by being used in a criminal proceeding.

In order to take a look at whether people should be allowed back into society after being found non-guilty of a crime due to insanity, first we have to discuss what the insanity defense actually is and the history of it. The insanity defense refers to a plea in which defendants are found not guilty due to a mental issue that compromises their ability to determine whether they committed right or wrong. However, some states also allow people to dispute that they could not control their actions. (2) The most notable case of insanity defense was Regina v M’Naghten which occurred in Britain during 1581. A treaty passed stated that, “If a madman or a

Using insanity defense as an available option for criminals to get lesser punishment is a very controversial topic. There are many flaws within this law that should be taken into consideration when deciding if insanity defense should be abolished. Taking into account the strengths and weakness of this topic, it is clear that the insanity defense should most definitely be abolished.

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.

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 this study, the author investigates the controversial debate of whether the insanity plea is a legitimate defense or just an easy ploy people use as an excuse to commit crimes. The author’s discussion rest on four major tests used in determining legal insanity: 1) The M'Naghten Rule 2) The "Irresistible Impulse 3) The Durham Rule and 4) The Model Penal Code. The author also uses court cases that expose the pros and cons of each insanity rule. What the author finds is that, to be held criminally responsible, two essential elements have to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, (a) the person committed the act (actus reus) (b) in doing so, the person acted with his or her own free will, intentionally and for rational reasons (mens rea). According

"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,

The medical definition of insanity differs completely from the legal aspect. The medical definition of insanity is, as The Free Dictionary defines “a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder.” There is no mention of criminal activity or lack of responsibility

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

The current American Justice System has many issues, one in particular is the insanity defense. Defendants have used this plea in courts for many years, which have led to massive debates. The insanity plea weighs heavily in our society. A society that demands for justice. However, some people praise it as if it was sent from the heavens above. On the other hand, there are many people who view it as an unnecessary evil. “The insanity defense is rooted in a basic principle of justice; this it is unfair to hold persons responsible for their actions when they don’t know, or can’t control, what they are doing” (Worth 16), it may be true that there are people out there who are truly “unaware” of their actions while committing a crime, but if they are unaware should these people still be held responsible and punished for the crime? In the editorial, “In Defense of the Insanity Defense”, by Robert L. Scandoff, the author uses credible sources, counterarguments, and does not cherry pick information; however, in the article “Abolish the ‘Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ Plea”, by the Lancaster News Era, the author uses cherry picking, connotation, and has no sources. Being able to identify cherry picking and conformational bias in a writer’s work is important because these writing techniques can either liberate a criminal or imprison a mentally ill person.