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.

The insanity defense has been used in several cases in criminal law. This defense basically states that the accused cannot be held responsible for what he/she did because they had no control over their actions. Many times the defense attorney will plea for a deal that the defendant be sent to a mental rehabilitation center for proper treatment. When using this defense the defense attorney will argue that there may be a chemical imbalance in his brain therefore he had no idea what he was doing at the time.

Personally I feel as though the Insanity defense is a good thing for the United States. The mentally insane cannot be tossed into a jail cell and be forgotten about; this will in turn create more problems. I feel without the insanity defense our society would use prison to house all the insane people who have committed crimes without understanding. These people obviously need help and cannot be thrown out of society and forgotten, they need to be rehabilitated so they can function in society. Teaching the insane right from wrong in a way they will understand is how they will be reformed into law abiding citizens. However, if the insanity defense was use more often than it is, or over used my feelings would be different from what they are now. This subject affects me and everyone in society in that if dangerous mentally insane people are not properly taken care of in an institution they can become a reoccurring threat to society. This issue is pretty stagnant compared to other political issues; the most recent high profile insanity defense case was in 1981 when John

The word insanity is used by a defender in criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime by using a mental illness as a justification. Insanity is the mental state of not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality, lack of conduct affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior (Lilienfeld 2009). In the article, Rethinking the Revolving Door Dereck Denckla argues that “while the number of people with mental illness in state psychiatric hospitals has decreased precipitously over the last thirty years, the number of mentally-ill people in jails and prisons has steadily increased (Denckla 2001).” This is because psychiatrists are leaving there patients unattended letting them cause damage to innocent people. However, threw out the years defendants have gotten away with insanity defense and delinquents now want to use this form of excuse as well. Insanity defense has made it difficult for the courts to determine an answer since they will need sufficient evidence to determine whether the defendant is guilty or freed because of psychological disorder. Cases like these should be taken to another level of

Although the idea of the “insanity defense” is state mandated and not federally acknowledged, it has drastically shifted overall throughout the course of time. The primary debate has now shifted from the sole focus on “insanity defense” to the idea of the death penalty and how it should be addressed in cases of serious mental illness or disabilities. Each state has specific laws surrounding all aspects of mental illness and how that should relate to the severity of the charges. “Currently in the United States, forensic mental-health professionals (psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists) conduct the determination of whether the defendant fits the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of insanity at the time of the crime” (Richie et al, 2014). On the other hand, forensic psychologists who administer these assessments associated with determining legal proceeding must also place emphasis on adhering to the Code of Ethics. This could mean the psychologist needs to place emphasis on several areas when determining the adequate outcome. Legally, they have policies, questions, and parameters that the psychologist must adhere to but there is also the possibility of professional biases and errors.

There is vast number of individuals who use insanity defense and many who successfully use it.

In cases where a defendant has committed the crimes in question but is clearly mentally ill, a “guilty but mentally ill” verdict is used. The guilty but mentally ill verdict acknowledges when a defendant 's mental illness played a large role in a crime without causing it. A guilty but mentally ill defendant is sentenced in the same way as if the defendant were guilty, then the court decides whether the defendant requires treatment for their mental illness. One criticism of the guilty but mentally ill verdict is that, given the level of mental health resources in prisons and jails, it is not very likely a defendant will actually receive relevant treatment while incarcerated.

For instance not all people may not even be in their right state of mind; mens rea, when committing a crime. Some people can be mentally ill that they have no control over their actions. There are approximately 356,000 inmates with serious mental illness in jails and state prisons(Torrey EF, Zdanowicz MT, Kennard AD, par. 1). Of that 356,000 only a small percentage actually receive help that they need. At least 83% of jail inmates with a mental illness did not have access to needed treatment(NAMI, 5). This staggering number yet only proves that tougher sentencing will create more criminals. When a mentally ill person does not receive the adequate help they deserve it will just make their actions repetitive because they are not learning right from wrong. Detaining them in jails or prisons creates an environment much like an asylum, which can lead to more serious issues.

This paper is going to explain the research that I have done on the insanity defense in general, my own opinion on the use of pleading insanity, a recent case on the successful pleading of insanity to prevent a defendant from being criminally responsible, and the positives and negatives of the insanity defense. I am also going to do my best to explain what should happen to a criminal defendant after they are declared by the courts to be insane, as well citing all of my research.

According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a half of 1% of defendants in court cases plea mental insanity in a trial, and with this defense, only about 1/20,000 actually make the plea into a solution. Madness, mental instability, pure insanity; these names all define the nature of the mentally ill in a light of sadistic and melancholic misanthropy. In the mind of these few on our planet, they simply do not realize what has happened to them. Almost like a trance, or a trip of sorts, where nothing is comprehensible to anyone except the victim. Mental illness deemed as madness is a problem to only a few souls in the world, with many kinds focusing on violence, trauma, childhood memories, or simply lack of knowledge of what is the real

Cryer et al. (2014) argue that insanity defense shouldn't be confused with defendant's incompetency. This is because individuals who are incompetent in a court of law are not able to stand their trial. For this reason, any incompetent defendant is held in a mental institution up to the period they are considered to participate or make informed decisions in the court of law's proceedings. Additionally, insanity defense that is perceived to be incompetence is separated from issues such as mental retardation. For example, a ruling that was carried out by the United States Supreme Court in 2002, Atkins v. Virginia argue that the effect of the defendants who are mentally retarded comprise of unusual and cruel punishment. This is not prohibited

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

Not guilty by reason of insanity is a defense strategy that has often been used by serial murderers in the past once an offender has been charged; however, contradictory to popular belief, this defense has been used in less than one percent of all criminal cases. According to Hickey, “The legal system uses the term insanity to define the state of mind of an offender at the time of the offense; offenders may be deemed insane at the moment of the crime and only for that period of time” (2014, p. 75). There have been four insanity defenses used in the United States to determine criminal responsibility, although only two are still in use to this day, and without much success.

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is a defense by excuse in criminal trials arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease. (“Insanity defense,” 2016)

In my opinion, the insanity defense should be in place for those individuals who are in fact mental incapable of fully understanding their actions. However, I perceive it as being used more often than actually applicable to people. Upon reading though, I was surprised that less than 0.2% of people have been found to be considered insane (Schweitzer, N.J., & Saks, M.J. (2011). As for the standards, I feel as if having either prior knowledge of the disorder or several expert opinions are needed to ensure the legitimacy of the plea. That being said, the neuroimaging should also be considered, if found to be more reliable and accurate upon further reflection. If a person is found to be legally insane, they should be treated medically as such. Furthermore,