Insanity Defense

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.

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.

For years, the insanity defense has developed and turned into a difficult but sometime successful defense system in a court of law. The exact law changes from state to state however the main idea remains the same. The insanity defense could apply or be used on a person who is considered legally insane. They must have a severe mental disease or defect and must prove they were at the time of the crime, legally insane. Also said person has to prove they didn’t know the impact, quality or the nature of their act or acts (The Insanity).

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

Over the years, the Insanity Plea has gained much fame and controversy, for both many good and many bad reasons. The fact that a person can simply plead that he or she plainly is not in the right mind, and escape the consequences of just about any crime, causes many to be outraged, and rightfully so. Along with the introduction of the insanity plea into the United States Justice System, many men and women have been able to escape proper punishment for their crimes, but also there have been necessary pleas for those who are truly insane. The United States Justice System should retain the insanity plea, and although there will be those who try to abuse the system inevitably, the right to a fair trial for all is reason enough to keep such a law.

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, otherwise called the mental disorder defense, is a barrier by reason in a criminal case, contending that the litigant is not in charge of their activities due to a verbose or tenacious psychiatric infection at the time of the criminal demonstration. Competency figures out if a respondent will have the capacity to show up at trial and comprehend the procedures; sanity determines figures out if a litigant will be considered in charge of his criminal activities. Accordingly, a respondent who is skillful to stand trial may in any case be found not blameworthy by reason of

The insanity defense, used when a defendant commits a crime but is mentally incapable of understanding the consequence of his actions, is a controversial plea that has been in existence for several centuries. The insanity defense uses the idea that the defendant committed the crime, but due to the lack of mental instability, was unable to understand that their actions are wrong. The insanity defense dates back to the 19th century. Daniel M’Naghten was a woodworker who thought that he was a target of a conspiracy with the pope and the British Prime Minister, Robert Peel.

The insanity defense is when the court finds the defendant insane during the time of the crime. That means that their actions were unintentional. Those that usually plea this get less time and a less severe punishment compared to those who are unable to use it. However, what many people forget to realize is that instead of going to jail where they are unable to take care of themselves they are shipped off to a mental institute where they will be monitored for a certain period of time until they are deemed ready to leave.

There are several problems surrounding insanity defense: the most prominent one that psychologists and experts who testify face is judging the individuals psychological state retrospectively (Costano & Costanzo, 2013). The insanity pleas and defenses rely on the mental state of an individual at the moment they were committing the crime, not prior or after the crime. Therefore psychologists who evaluate these defendants are tasked with making judgements of an individual that was not available to them at the moment of crime and sometimes for long period after the crime.

Despite its depiction in popular culture, insanity is not an easy option in criminal cases. It is a huge gamble: It requires admitting to the underlying crime, and then proving additional facts excusing that crime.

Criminal verdicts are always being watched by our community because citizens seek protection by law enforcement. Although the criminal justice system has established a foundation which is expected to promote public safety and punishment of criminals, they do not always live up to that capacity. One aspect of this is the insanity defense expectation. Verdicts are revealed after analyzations of criminals’ intent to commit crimes are determined. If it is proven that a person had no knowledge or sanity in committing a crime or breaking a law, that person will not be punished nor charged as a criminal. I strongly disagree with this method of decisions by our judicial system. No leeway should be available

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

"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,

In the United States, a defense for criminal intent is the plea of insanity, where an offender can plead to having been insane when he perpetrated the offense, the application of insanity as a defense in the United States is synonymous and widely associated with United States v. Hinckley, (1982). The defendant had attempted to assassinate president Ronal Regan but failed in his attempts and wounded a couple of people. At trial, defendant produced evidence in that point to the fact he was not guilty due to insanity. The jury found him not guilty since he lacked the men 's rea necessary for committing the crime. It must be noted that in the U.S, jurors shy away from finding persons with mental deficiency not guilty, they are punished for their crimes and receive medical care while serving their sentences, however much they have been rehabilitated they will never get out of jail.