Insanity As a Legitimate Defense in the Court of Law

People who are against this, think that this plea is an tactic the lawyers use to get their clients less time in jail, or inclusively get them into a better place such as a mental hospital. I understand that they think this way because there has been cases where it has been done with those intentions. However, we need to understand that psychiatrists knowledge is not the same, it is more advanced. In addition, we need to know that lawyers will not determine if the person was insane, but only claim him to be. It is all up to the psychiatrists who will examine the accused who will undergo many test that will determine him insane in the time of the crime scene. Fersh, the author of “Thinking of the Insanity Defense” stated in his book that, “ The American Psychological Association is primarily interested in providing empirical research to serve as a basis for informed public decisions, assisting the judge and jury in making legal, scientific and moral determinations, and ensuring appropriate treatment for mentally impaired offenders. The APA supports the insanity defense and believes that all mentally impaired defendants, regardless of guilt or innocence, deserve sufficient treatment following the verdict, especially if they pose a threat to themselves or others. The organization is greatly concerned over the issue of releasing dangerous individuals to society after inadequate treatment and would like to provide

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 M 'Naugten rule was the first instance when the “not guilty by reason of insanity” was used in western cultures and is still used in some court rulings today.

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 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.

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

Where do you stand with a defense that, under-minds an act of crime and permits criminal justification to overlook a crime that has been committed? That is basically what the insanity defense is. It has been around for over two-hundred years and since then it has had several reforms brought to it. Was also brought around to help the mentally ill, allowing them to plead not guilty to a crime because they lacked the mental capacity to understand right from wrong or appreciate why what they did was wrong. Basically, it states they aren’t criminally responsible for their actions; therefore they are sent to mental facilities to help treat their mental illness and not given prison or jail time.

The insanity defense dates back to 1843. A man named Daniel McNaughtan tried to assassinate British Prime Minister Robert Peel. He attempted to kill the prime minister and successfully killed the prime ministers secretary. When brought to court he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. He was found not guilty by reasons of insanity. The U.S criminal justice system adopted this legal procedure that now is established. The insanity plea has been used for the past one hundred and fifty years.

I completely agree media plays a very large role in the insanity defense claim. Its portrayed in movies and TV shows often. I think that multiple evaluations should be done by more than one psychologist. I think you would need more than one opinion to determine the truth. It would definitely be interesting to sit in on one of these

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.

Before starting on the topic of Andrea Yates, it’s important to understand sanity and insanity which are terms that the law uses. A sane person is described as someone who can control their behavior and understands the consequences of their behavior. On the other hand, insanity indicates that the

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

(Asokan) When the someone’s mind become so distorted that they could not could not understand the crime they have committed, they would be declared insanity and not be held accountable for the crime they have committed. A mental disease alone is not enough to get the insanity defense to work. There must be proof of the mental disease manifesting itself so much that it affects the mind, emotions, and behavior. The actual term “insanity or insane” is not a medical term. It is more of a legal term to describe the state someone was in when involved in a crime. Justice Tracy, a 13th century judge in King Edward’s court, first formulated the foundation of an insanity defense when he instructed the jury that it must acquit by reason of insanity. (Asokan) With the Wild Beast Test as the first test to determine if someone was declared insane, the jury were left to determine if the person on trial understood their actions no better than a baby or a wild beast. If someone were ever found to meet this limitation, they would never be accountable for what they have done. As time progressed the case of R vs Madfield came about. In this case the Good and Evil Test was created. Instead of the traditional “wild

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