Insanity as a Defense

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

“Your Honors, gentlemen of the jury: It would be easy for me to-day to play insanity, because the circumstances are such as to excite any man, and under the natural excitement of what is taking place to-day (I cannot speak English very well, but am trying to do so, because most of those here speak English), under the excitement which my trial causes me would justify me

Have you ever heard of the Insanity Defense? The insanity defense is when the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions because of a psychiatric disease or a psychotic episode during the act of the crime. For instance, the Durham rule can be used if the defendant is diagnosed with a mental illness that was present during the time or show his or hers medical history records to demonstrate the defendant’s insanity. In the book In Cold Blood, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, was sentenced to death for the murder of the Clutter Family, on November 15, 1959. Perry, who was the one that killed the whole family,could be eligible for the insanity plea if he has shown any signs of being mentally unstable during the act of the crime.

Similar to how the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the rule states that the accused is assumed sane “unless the defense proved at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong" (Francone). This rule is now a standard in the United Kingdom and in almost half the states in America. The next test is the Model Penal Code, which states that “a criminal defendant must be found not guilty by reason of insanity if he is diagnosed with a relevant mental defect” (FindLaw). The mental defects could range anywhere from severe mental retardation to schizophrenia. The test was adopted in the 1970s, but it quickly became unfavorable after John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate President Reagan in 1981 and was found not guilty by reason of insanity because of the test’s loose rules. Soon after, the federal government went back to using the M’Naghten Rule because it was

Throughout history, there have been many criminals who used the insanity defence to receive a fair trial, but some of of these people were not actually insane. However, in the case the 1989 Montreal massacre, Canadian journalists medicalized Marc Lepine's deviance in their writing techniques to divert the public’s attention from the event. According to Horwitz (1981), the medicalization of criminal behaviour “refers to the tendency to define deviance as a manifestation of an underlying sickness, to find the causes of deviance within the individual rather than in the social structure. . .” (p. 750). The type of deviances that can be viewed under the term “medicalization” is mental sickness and child abuse. For example, some journalists referred

In the video “A Crime of Insanity” Murdock and Navasky present the case of Ralph Tortorici, a young man who brought a rifle and a hunting knife to State University of New York. Specifically, Murdock and Navasky presents Ralph’s story and trial. However, viewers have to ask themselves is Ralph mentally insane or is Ralph criminally responsible for his actions? Although some people believe that Ralph is either mentally insane or criminally responsible, Murdock and Navasky provide insight of mental competency and if Ralph is fit to stand on trial. In sum, then, their view is that is it fair to have a trial if someone fits the legal definition of mental competency but, is not mental competent to a psychiatrist. In this paper I summarize Ralph

The problem with this defense is that insanity here is either examined from a legal angle or a psychoanalytical one which involves talking to people and having them take tests. There is however, no scientific proof confirming the causal relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior based on a deeper neurological working of the brain sciences. The psychiatrist finds himself/herself in a double bind where with no clear medical definition of mental illness, he/she must answer questions of legal insanity- beliefs of human rationality, and free will instead of basing it on more concrete scientific facts. Let me use a case study to elaborate my argument that law in this country continues to regard insanity as a moral and legal matter rather than ones based on scientific analysis.

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.

The Mentally ill were a quiet but present existence in Medieval society. The Mentally disabled were treated with leniency in courts and law codes. This is due to a perceived lack of understanding between right and wrong, and also that they are already punished enough by their illness. In this paper, the reason and background of the Medieval origins of the insanity defense will be discussed. Legal Terminology of Differentiating between insanity and mental retardation was important in medieval law codes.

The insanity defence is one of the most controversial topics in the legal system, used by many criminal defendants as an excuse for their unlawful activities. In fact, the Canadian legal system has experienced this in the case of Valentine Shortis, an Irish Immigrant who was convicted of killing two men, injuring one and attempted murder on March 1, 1895. Charged with murder and sentenced to death, Valentine’s Lawyer St. Pierre argued that he suffered from insanity, such as his inability to distinguish right from wrong. Moreover, there was evidence from Shortis's friends, families, and neighbours who claimed that Shortis was a very vain and mischievous person. According to Friedland, the crown (Macmaster) stated that “he did many eccentric,

In 1972, the American Law Institute (a panel of legal experts) developed a new rule for insanity as part of the Model Penal Code. This rule says that a defendant is not responsible

The medical definition of insanity differs completely from the legal aspect. The medical definition of insanity is, as The Free Dictionary defines “a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder.” There is no mention of criminal activity or lack of responsibility

The nature of lawful defenses, justification, excuses, and the insanity defenses studies the guidelines of controlling the different jurisdictions’ elements. This paper will examine a legal decision/case involving the defenses of justifications mentioned in Chapters 5 and 6. This paper will discuss the case which is state. Justification is a defense depends upon the need of a just cause or excuse (Schmalleger & Hall, 2014). Justification is a lawful reason for an act that signifies the defense of justification. The defense of justification in criminal law can excuse the defendant from responsibility for a criminal act where the act is seen as being required and where the defendant is required to make a choice of evils

One possible critique that can be pointed out is by the admirers of the combination of law and psychiatry, especially by those who enjoy working with the “rights of the accused” is regarding Fulford’s methods which, concern compulsory treatment of certain psychiatric patients. He fails to take into consideration the legal liabilities of non-cooperative patients. It is unethical to enforce a therapeutic regime on a non-cooperative person by dismissing the accused’s reasons as nonsensical. The state needs to do more than providing a remedy for a wrong action, it needs to, to the best of its ability describe the constraints, these being the inability to reason out actions. Another critique, regarding Fulford’s thesis is his treatment of the concept of “insanity defense”. In criminal law, insanity defense is a concept that enforces that a person who has had a mental episode is not responsible for the crimes that he has committed during this mental episode. Critiques, especially of later times believe that even the most insane, psychotic killers generally perform crimes, with intent. The context in which this action occurs is an important aspect and must be taken into perspective, whilst trying to grasp the person’s action before granting them innocence due to diagnosis with mental