Insanity Defense In The Film Cab Driver

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 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 criminally insane need a special form of rehabilitation and should be granted to right to fight for this sentence. The insanity defense serves a definitive purpose in our legal system dismissing those who should truly be found innocent.

Forensic psychology has had a lot of debates on the insanity defense. This paper serves as a review to explain why the article I’m reviewing relates to the insanity defense. The article I’m reviewing is called Psychosis and Substance Use: Implications for Conditional Release Readiness Evaluations.

Courts and the jurors serving in them need to be cautious when listening to expert testimony given, regarding the mental capabilities or sanity of an individual. This is because it is impossible to go into the mind of the defendant and know for a fact that they are mentally capable, which causes any assessment to be in part guesswork. Also the definition of what the judiciary has considered mentally insane has changed through time and in different legal systems. I argue that expert testimony in cases regarding mental sanity is not uniform and varies in different instances. As a society should be trying to make the definitions and assessment of sanity the uniform in all of the states and United States federal courts for persons to be tried

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

There is an issue that would be severely detrimental to society as a whole if it’s not discussed.The Insanity plea is the type of plea in court that will let people get off scot free without charges due to them being in the incorrect state of mind at the time. Insanity Plea cases that end up successful generally mean that the criminal will get away with no charges. The subject of discussion has been defined by myself in the cases of multiple criminals. Some cases of the insanity plea have been proven to be quite literally insane.

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

The mind can lead one to do many crazy things especially kill people. Yet, does insanity justify the killing of many people, and can insanity justify the aftermath of what the family of the victim has to experience? On both accounts, the answer stands as no. One cannot plead insanity to justify their actions in killing another human being because not only does the murder kill the innocent victim, the murderer kills the victim’s family’s hope and happiness from their loved one. This is not to say the murderer does not and should not receive help. He or she should absolutely receive help in order to prevent further killings from occurring. Thus, while an insanity plea is not a justifiable defense for someone with a mental illness, that person should receive rehabilitation while in a correctional facility

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)

At some point he felt some emotional feelings with Jodie Foster films from on television. Hinckley wrote over 6 trillion letters to Jodie Foster. He did not if he was in love or if he wanted to kill her. The same highly personalized sense emotional feels came about when he saw the president and he waved and smiled at Hinckley. Mr. Hinckley took the time to write Jodie Foster a letter to explain his goals for the assassination and explained that he had a deliberate reason for carrying it out and how the killing of the president was going to go. He was “a man driven by passion, by uncontrollable forces, is not often inclined to take the time to write a letter to explain what this is about.” (Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Vincent Fuller) The prosecution stated Mr. Hinckley concealed his weapon from authorities, the staff at the hotel when he checked in, and everyone else he came in contact with. When the shooter did not have a clear view or shot of the president he waited for the perfect time to shoot the president. Another known fact was he chose special kind of ammunition the

The Insanity defense is built upon the notion that individuals, who are not fully mentally aware, should be held less responsible for their actions than those who are fully aware. This assumption, perhaps important for determining moral culpability fails when it is transferred over into our legal system. As a country, we need to recognize that moral and legal responsibility are two different things which ought to be kept separate if we hope to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe in a world where mental illness is prevalent.