Insanity Defense Arguments

Insanity Defense should be abolished in that it serves as an excuse for criminals to get away with crime and as such, it should be abolished. This opinion is similar to those echoed by other scholars. For instance, Perlin (2016) noted that if the government is sincere about protecting the public, then the mental condition of the individual at the time the crime is committed is immaterial. Currently, a lot of time is wasted during trials with psychiatrists running scenarios of what might be wrong with the accused.

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.

Four years prior to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Constitution bars states from executing prisoners who are insane.” Then a few moments later after an inmate submitted an appeal on death row, The Supreme Court agreed “to decide the further question of whether a state can, in effect, make a prisoner eligible for execution by administering anti-psychotic medication against his will.” In the Perry v Louisiana case, Keith B. Nordyre argues for Perry’s rights, whether or not they

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

In 1982, John W. Hinckley Jr. was acquitted of the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, there was a lava bed of public criticism against the insanity defense. The concept that someone so mentally ill that he is incompetent of understanding his actions should not be accountable for those actions, has been a traditional doctrine in the justice system. However, after Hinckley’s trial, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah abolished the insanity defense in their respective states. (Baylor College of Medicine)

In 1972, the American Law Institute (a panel of legal experts) developed a new rule for insanity as part of the Model Penal Code. This rule says that a defendant is not responsible

On June 26, 1989, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Penry v. Lynaugh, upheld the imposition of the death penaklty on a mentally retarded offender, John Penry (Chan 1211). The Court, also, held that the Federal Constitution's eighth amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause is not violated by the execution of mentally retarded defendants (Cook 869). I strongly concur with the United States Supreme Court's decision. I do not believe that mentally retarded defendants should be categorically exempt from the death penalty because of their retardation. I hold this position because IQ test results are sometimes unreliable, there are different degrees of understanding of right and wrong among mentally retarded

The capital punishment, known as the death penalty has been a widely debated topic in America over its constitutionality after being reinstated in 1976. There are two distinct sides in the debate over whether the death penalty is an unjust punishment. The debate spreads over to whether mentally ill and juveniles should be tried as adults and receive the death penalty or if their mental capacity restrains the government from issuing the punishment. Not only that, but the methods used to administer the punishment are also being picked and pried.

In the 1700’s courts would use the “wild beast” test to determine whether or not an individual was sane or insane. If proven insane the individual would be looked at as “no more than an infant” (Hucker). Today, we test for insanity using the American Law Institutes’ test which was adopted by the Supreme Court of California in 1978 which states “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”

Insanity shouldn't be recognized as a valid defense or an excuse to keep someone from going to prison. Releasing an insane individual back into the public is dangerous for the people around them. It's much safer for our society if insane criminals remain locked up in jail or a mental hospital. Let's think back to Andrew Goldstein, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was in and out of a mental hospital for seven years, just two weeks after being released from the hospital he kills a woman by pushing her in front of

According to the empirical research conducted by Borum and Fulero (1999), there are four kinds of public’s misperceptions concerning the insanity defense. First the public believe that the insanity defense is being overused however, multiple researches have shown that in reality this kind of defense is used in a really small rate. Secondly the insanity defense is usually applied to people who have committed murder. Again in reality only a minimum percentage of the defendants belong to this class of criminal. Third, people usually believe that the inanity defendants are getting free immediately afterwards or they have smaller verdicts than they should. Actually this is not true because researches have shown that these criminals usually get an equal or an even longer verdict than in similar cases when the criminals have the responsibility of the action, in the majority of US. Finally people tend to be excessively afraid of the mentally ill defendants who

The evolution of the insanity defense has taken place over hundreds of years; the earliest records of criminals pardoned for “madness” date back to the sixteenth century. However, the first instance of a court defense most resembling today’s insanity plea took place in 1843, titled the M’Naghten rule. Although this case took place in England, the policy born from it was adopted by the United States soon after (Rolf 2). Another test that is widely used in the United States, the Durham test, originated in New Hampshire in 1871. The third test was brought about by the American Law Institute in 1955. These three standards for legal insanity are still used today and approach the

The media often portrays mental illnesses and the insanity defense as a loop-hole for criminals to get out of taking responsibility for their crimes. However, this is far from the truth for people who commit crimes due to their mental state. This is because the court systems are failing people who have severe mental illnesses by not allowing them to have proper access to mental health care. How can we change the insanity plea to better help mentally ill criminals?

As a matter of law, the jury verdict should be reversed because imposing death penalty punishment upon a criminal defendant who is suffering from mental illness is cruel and unusual punishment and that violates the Eighth Amendment of the State of Hamilton.

Adding to the chorus of those who raise questions about fairness are those who argue that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for those who are severely ill or mentally impaired (Preface to “Is the Death Penalty Applied Fairly?” 1).