Insanity Defense Essay

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 aftermath prove Hinkley abused the justice system. The burden of proof shifted to the defense.”Congress and half of the states enacted changes in the insanity defense, all limiting use of the defense. Congress and nine states limited the substantive test of insanity; Congress and seven states shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, eight states supplemented the insanity verdict with a separate verdict of guilty but mentally ill”(THE JOHN HINCKLEY TRIAL & ITS EFFECT ON THE INSANITY DEFENSE).he verdict was so injustice congress passed a law shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. Three states abolished the defense alone. The states of Montana, Idaho, and Utah how banned the defense but continue to admit evidence of mental disorder

The sentence change was further ruled as the right decisions by the Supreme Court which stated that “mentally ill people cannot be executed if they don’t have a factual and rational understanding of why they’re being punished.” This was

The word insane is a legal term. Because research has identified many different mental illnesses of varying severities, it is now too simplistic to describe a severely mentally ill person merely as insane. The federal law states that insanity is a fair defense if " at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendants as a result of sever mental disease or defect was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts"(Knowles). The American

The article “A Plea to North Carolina: Bringing fairness to the Assessment of Civil Battery Liability for Defendants with Cognitive Disabilities” discusses how individuals with cognitive disabilities should be held liable for their actions. When mentally insane people intentionally attack people, they should be charged for their misdemeanors. Even when successfully pleading insane in a courtroom, they may not have their charges dropped. Chriscoe uses the example regarding the case of Mcguire Vs Almy, where a registered nurse sued one of her patients that attacked her. Even though he was insane, he still had the intent of trying to harm her. Due to this fact, the court ruled that he was liable for his actions. In many cases, courts have to prove

Moreover, Morse (2011) noted that defendants who efficiently accomplish the mens rea will merely be acquitted and released. Conversely, Morse (2011) argued that the major reason for limiting or rejecting the mens rea is the fear for public safety, and also that it may be the primary source for the claim that the mens rea subvert the insanity

The M’Naghten Rule addresses some jurisdiction for determining whether a criminal defendant have the volume to associate criminal intent for insanity at the time they committed the offense of which they are being accused, in which the M’Naghten test for right-wrong. The M’Naghten test focus on the time the act was committed, if the defendant was experiencing

. The ruling held that the government may involuntarily administer antipsychotic medications to a mentally ill criminal defendant in order to render him competent to stand trial. Based on prior case law, I believe the court in certain situation should allow this to happen and should be on a case by case

If someone plans to abuse the insanity defense in order to receive a better sentence, it probably will not be as pleasant as they expect it to

The insanity defense is a difficult defense for defendants to use and only 2% charged with serious crimes use it. Defendants who successfully use the insanity defense are found not guilty by reason of insanity and they are committed to a mental institution. They are kept in a mental institution until they are no longer mentally ill and a threat to society. When using the insanity defense it is up to the defendant to prove that he/she is insane by a preponderance of the evidence. There is three rules/test that can be used in an insanity case they are: the M’Naghten rule, the “Product of Mental Illness” rule, and the “Substantial Capacity” test.

The M’Naghten rule is a test that focuses on whether a defendant knew what they did was right or wrong at the time it was committed due to a disease of the mind and required a complete lack of capacity. (Davenport, p 254)

M’Naghten Rule: The M’Naghten rule came to fruition following the 1843 trial of Daniel M’Naghten for the murder of Sir Robert Peel. Peel was the secretary to the prime minister and was mistakenly shot in an attempt on the prime minister’s life. After nine experts testified to M’Naughten’s mental state the jury found M’Naghten not guilty by reason of insanity. This verdict was the catalyst for the formation of set guidelines used to determine a person’s mental state. Also referred to as the right or wrong test

The death penalty overall is considered to not be cruel and unusual punishment. Historically, cases arise that challenge this statement by precluding defendants based on their ability to know right from wrong. A few circumstances in particular are used as defenses by stating that certain classes at the time of the offense being mentally ill, mentally retarded, or minors. (Davenport, 2012, p. 360).

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

In today’s world, insanity is defined through many different perspectives. The dictionary definition of insanity is “the state of being seriously mentally ill.” However, is this really what insanity means? Society has taken it into its own gracious hands to define “the insane” through physical appearance and that seems to be the general consensus of people all over the world.