Insanity Reform Argument Analysis

The plea should be considered as a right for criminals trying to justify themselves in court. It would right to help the people who are mentally ill rather than avoiding the fact that they are mentally incompetent, and placing them in prison. There would be negative affects if mentally ill defendants do not get the proper medical treatment necessary. It is better to take action against the mental illness of a criminal so they will not put themselves and others at risk. The insanity defense would most likely lead them to a longer sentence, but will give them a chance to better their mental

According to Psychology Today (2012), the insanity defense is defined as an individual who is being charged of a crime that can recognize that he or she committed the crime, but argues that they are not responsible for it because of their mental breakdown during the crime, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity.” While this defense is considered to be a legal strategy, it can also be seen as an indication of what society may believe; “it reflects society 's belief that the law should not

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 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.

It is within my opinion, that the insanity defense is used over excessively and is taking part in almost every defense to any crime. Offenders seem to have the knowledge to the use of this defense and will often provide a plea to guilty by insanity or temporary insanity, within the faith, to receive a reduced sentence. While insanity has to be a proven fact and a

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.

In order to take a look at whether people should be allowed back into society after being found non-guilty of a crime due to insanity, first we have to discuss what the insanity defense actually is and the history of it. The insanity defense refers to a plea in which defendants are found not guilty due to a mental issue that compromises their ability to determine whether they committed right or wrong. However, some states also allow people to dispute that they could not control their actions. (2) The most notable case of insanity defense was Regina v M’Naghten which occurred in Britain during 1581. A treaty passed stated that, “If a madman or a

The Insanity Plea should only be for the ones that are not mentally stable and they need to be put in a mental hospital. If they get the help they need they could be let out of the hospital for good behavior and proper care. When in therapy they need to complete goals and also take their medicine on a regularly basis. The definition of insanity is where you cannot know right from wrong and your mind is not in a stable condition to be out in reality. The people that are considered to be a danger to society are the ones that have severe mental

All states in the United states should choose one alternative test for insanity defense and all states abide by that one test, but that can never happen, so why not forget the test, forget insanity plea and just plead guilty of reason of mental ill or self

The insanity plea is a poor excuse for serious lawbreakers, and should have no bearing in the sentencing of criminals. All criminal cases today have three ways in which a defendant can plea. Guilty, not guilty, or Insanity.

Former U.S president Ronald Reagan was shot by a man named John Hinckley in the year 1981. The president along with many of his entourage survived the shooting despite the heavy infliction of internal and external injuries. The Hinckley case is a classic example of the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' case (NGRI). The criminal justice system under which all men and women are tried holds a concept called mens rea, a Latin phrase that means "state of mind". According to this concept, Hinckley committed his crime oblivious of the wrongfulness of his action. A mentally challenged person, including one with mental retardation, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong is protected and exempted by the court

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

The insanity defense is a very complex criminal defense plea. Over hundreds of years, the insanity defense has evolved. The correct term for the insanity defense in a criminal case will be “not guilty by reasons of insanity” (NGRI). Many people have used the insanity defense without success. When someone uses the NGRI defense it is argued that a mental illness took full effect leading to an individual to commit a criminal act. Many have tried to use such a defense, yet one after another they have failed. The insanity defense is one of the hardest, if not the hardest defense to use. Pleading insanity can be tricky. One cannot simply plead insanity and expect for it to work.

"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,

When learning about the legal elements of a crime, it is stated that in order to establish a crime was committed Actus Reus and Mens Rea must be shown. There is however, a default in this procedure. The Free Dictionary defines insanity as “Insanity a legal term for mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts.” This is one of many legal definitions of insanity, and as you can see a key part of this definition is “not responsible for his or her acts.” How can we then decipherer Mens Rea ? When making an insanity defense, you are making the argument that the defendant had no Mens Rea during the crime or even a persisting condition. This is where controversy begins, and many debates start to rise about the circumstances of using this as a defense. As studies continue, and more cases are brought out using the insanity defense the increase in demand for a consistent diagnosis is fast approaching. One of the many defaults with cases with this particular defense is, there is never one diagnosis, and different events lead up to other areas. There is only one repeating factor that all insanity defenses have in common, which is the lack of Mens Rea.