Insanity Vs Insanity

What is sanity? Vaguely, sanity is simply the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner. Although this may be true, is there really a definition sanity that is not subjective? Luis Marques once said, " The dim veil between sanity and insanity is perception." Time and time again we let society determine what is logical and what is illogical, but whoever determines these things remain nameless and faceless. In my opinion, sanity is the real insanity that most people contribute to normality.

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 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.

"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 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

The concept of insanity as a defence was established in the early eighteenth century in the Arnold’s case (1724) and was further developed in the late 18th century in the Hadfield’s case (1800), but the standart test of criminal liability was only formed after the case of Daniel M’Naghten (1843). This case established the special verdict of ‚‘not guilty by reason of insanity‘.

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.

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.

The insanity defense has been affirmed as “a defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts” (Insanity). In terms of economic and futuristic principles the plea is viewed with hesitation. The concern comes from the belief that criminals will act insane up to their trial date to convince the jury they are insane (Starr), and it’s cost because sending all those deemed mentally not guilty by reason of insanity to the proper institutions.

Insanity is a permissible concept that consists of the courtroom purpose that a human is not qualified of creating mindful intent and cannot be held guilty for a criminal act. No human should be exempted of law-breaking or any other offense on the foundation of opinion decreed by psychiatric or mental health experts. Excusing a human of responsibility for a criminal act is an act of lawful humanity impersonating as an act of medical science. In addition, one who is merciful or merciless toward lawbreakers is a ethical complication, which is not related to the real expertise of medical

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.

To be real: I call myself crazy after checking my boyfriend’s location every hour to make sure he is where he says. Goodness, there are several conversations that led up to driving to the unknown location. Everyone can relate; but, it is a complete humiliation to those that suffer abnormal thoughts, feelings, and emotions. The easy-going, everyday decisions that normalcy demands terrorizes the brain of the insane. Get this, Brandon Gaille points out just how serious this problem is, “There are 51 types of insanity defense in the United States” (Gaille 2018). Legal systems take notice of the severity of mental illness. But, according to Natasha McKenna of the Washington Post, the answer to crime and insanity is to “hand them off” to a mental health institution and forget about the consequences of a person’s actions (McKenna 1). Mckenna practically dismisses people as objects, throwing

The insanity defense is perhaps the most difficult defense for members of the lay public to comprehend. On one hand, when a serial killer commits a string of horrific murders, he or she seems to fit any conceivable definition of being certifiably insane, but not all serial killers are found 'not guilty' by virtue of their insanity. On the other hand, many members of the public think the insanity defense itself is absurd and merely an excuse used by cunning defense attorneys to get their clients reduced jail time, or so the clients spend their confinement in a presumably nicer mental hospital than a prison.

The insanity defense has been a controversial issue among many individuals and legal experts. Whether or not an individual 's current mental state can get in the way of their ability to differentiate right from wrong at the time of a committed crime has been a discussion of great debate among society. Although it is rarely used in criminal proceedings its credibility is still questioned by many people. People who believe that the insanity defense should be abolished argue that the individual committed the crime regardless of being insane or not and they deserve to be punished. On the other end of the spectrum, some people believe that individuals should not be punished for the crime they have committed because they suffer from a mental illness that made them unaware of their actions at the time of the crime.