Essay about Insanity/Automatism Defense in Court

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

Two other types of tests were created regarding insanity in 1984--the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act and Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. The Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act placed the burden of proof on the defendant, and not the prosecution (Morse, 2008). The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales were also developed in 1984 to evaluate criminal responsibility with regard to sanity. It uses the concepts of cognitive and volitional components and is structured to

The insanity defense has been quite a controversial subject. It has been used by some of the most baleful criminals in history. Its controversy derives from the belief that people who plead insanity are excused from the fault of their crimes. Surprisingly however, this defense is rarely used because of how hard it is to prove legal insanity. Less than one percent of criminals choose to plead insanity and of those who choose to plead insanity the success is quite low at 25 percent.( Rolf. p. 2) This defense has been around for centuries. It can be dated back to the 14th century. Kings were willing to pardon crimes to those who were deemed “mad”. By the 18th century the “ wild beast” test was developed by some English courts. However, the

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.

When a defendant is convicted of a crime, arrested, and stand trial there are multiple ways that they can defend themselves. The criminal justice system has a variety of types of criminal defenses that one should be familiar with, if ever in the position of being charged with an offense. Within this paper, I will be talking about seven different types of criminal defenses, starting with: insanity, automatism, duress, self defense, intoxication, necessity/ lesser harm, and mistake of fact.

“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

In most cases, the Actus Reus, meaning a “guilty act” would be present, however may vary for the case for the Mens Rea element, meaning a “guilty mind”. Without either of these two elements, the defendant is not guilty, which can apply in the cases for Not Criminally Responsible offenders. When understanding the mind of an NCR offender, it is critical to grasp the Mens Rea within the crime because if a mental illness had prevented for the “guilty mind” to be present during the time of the crime, should it really be the mentally ill offender’s fault? Under Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an individual can only be considered as an NCR offender if either the mental disorder made it impossible for the offender to understand the morality of their actions and/or the offender could not understand the nature or quality of their actions (Legal Aid Ontario, n.d.). A judge can establish an NCR assessment whenever the defendant pleads guilty, however, this may vary from case to case (Legal Aid Ontario, n.d.). The NCR assessment is taken into account when proving the credibility of the mentally ill offender and whether or not their actions were intentionally towards a person when committing the crime (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2013). Therefore, to be considered a NCR offender itself is a difficult argument to prove in court. In addition, the offences that a mentally disordered civilian has been presumed to commit must be proven to the court with the Mens Rea element present. According to a study by the Mental Health Commission of Canada (2013), most NCRMD individuals who have been accused of one of the violent offenses such as homicide, attempted murder, and sexual offences, have been diagnosed in the psychosis spectrum, being 37.8%, while 68.9% (113 individuals studied) had psychosis issues. About 21% have personality disorders, 23.6% with

Despite the perception that anyone could potentially fabricate a story and argue for a not criminally responsible verdict, the defence of NCRMD is a difficult one to prove. Very few individuals are found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. In the cases where a trier of fact or jury has successfully accepted the defence, counsel for the defendant alongside expert witnesses, have been able to not only prove a mental disorder at the time of the offence but also have demonstrated that the accused was rendered incapable of knowing that their actions were

The Insanity Defense is used in criminal cases in which the defendant argues that due to their mental state, such as uncontrollable behavior during the time of the crime, they should not be sentenced, and instead should receive medical treatment.  Additionally, if the  defendant does not have the mental competency to understand the wrongfulness of the crime because of their mental illness, they should not be charged. If the defense is successful, in lieu of detainment, the defendant is sent to a secure psychiatric facility to receive treatment until deemed “sane” (Gerber 2-4.) The Insanity Defense protects the inalienable right of being of being tried fairly under the law. However, the defense faces great opposition. There are critics who call

"Not Guilty, By reason of Insanity!" These words have stung the ears of many courtroom observers, especially the families and friends of victims whose lives were snuffed out by a so-called 'insane' assailant. While there are indeed many insane people running around the streets today, I feel that many persons who use the temporary insanity defense are more conniving than insane. Also, being an inexact science, the psychiatric community often offers up differing opinions as to any particular individual's sanity. Furthermore, money or lack thereof can play a major role in the success or failure of an insanity defense. The temporary insanity defense should therefore be abolished, especially for felony offenses such as murder.

The ideological concept of an insanity defense, formerly termed “complete madness,” was originally incorporated into the English common-law jurisprudence system in the late thirteenth century of the United Kingdom as an affirmative defense for defendants under the yoke of criminal charges involving a heinous action which could involve the option of termination of a defendant’s life if adjudge guilty of such act (Hill). Through such incorporation of a legal defense, the institution of a new societal grouping known commonly as the “criminally insane” became expounded, as well as, the legal opportunity allowing for self-declaration of being “innocent by reason of mental illness or defect”(or, the insanity defense). Those criminally insane are a subset of the prison population who have been deemed to have committed their crimes under the influence of a mental disease/disorder, or who were not in a condition of intellect during the time of the crime to comprehend the illegality or immorality of their offense (Frontline). Only if the defendant has plead insanity before the court can they be considered a truly criminally insane inmate. There are manifold condemnations sustained by the judicial system ranging from guilty but insane to not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as the legal states of incompetency and diminished capacity. This distinction has become a substance of federal law, but as soon as a defendant is convicted, the treatment of the convicted individual is left

The concept of insanity as a defence was established in the early eighteenth century in the Arnold’s case (1724) and was further developed in the late 18th century in the Hadfield’s case (1800), but the standart test of criminal liability was only formed after the case of Daniel M’Naghten (1843). This case established the special verdict of ‚‘not guilty by reason of insanity‘.

The need for partial defence in murder cases has evolved through the common law and statue, in consideration of the weaknesses of the human mind to take control when faced with provocation and the challenges created by mental illness, which may result to serious violent. Court in England and Wales have experienced several difficulties in defining what “intention” (human mind) is in order to establish conviction for murder (R v Molony) 1985. This essay will therefore, discuss the need for partial defences to murder as “a buffer against the harsh effect of the mandatory life sentence for all cases of murder” in England and Wales.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, capital punishment is currently authorized in 31 of our 50 states and still creates a great deal of controversy due to the moral dilemma of consciously killing a human being. But, with the insanity defense, an individual who may face the death penalty has the chance of being proven innocent by reason of insanity, and therefore, may avoid capital punishment altogether. Not only will the defendant’s life be spared, but he or she may be able to reenter society as a free and respected

When the Durham case arose the insanity test was changed. Judge David Baezelon stated that, "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect." (Mental Health Law and the US Judicial System, pg 4) This was the foundation for the new insanity test. Baezelon worked with psychologists and psychiatrists in developing the new test and in 1962 the "Durham Rule" was founded. It was said to be better than the M'Naghten rule in that it included both cognition and volitional impairment. The M'Naghten rule didn't include volitional impairment, which is an irresistible impulse while cognition impairment is not understanding the quality of the act. The federal courts eventually rejected the Durham rule because its definition was too broad. Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers and drug addicts had successfully used the defense to defeat a wide variety of crimes.