Introduction:. Insanity Defense Is The Most Debated Of

People who are against this, think that this plea is an tactic the lawyers use to get their clients less time in jail, or inclusively get them into a better place such as a mental hospital. I understand that they think this way because there has been cases where it has been done with those intentions. However, we need to understand that psychiatrists knowledge is not the same, it is more advanced. In addition, we need to know that lawyers will not determine if the person was insane, but only claim him to be. It is all up to the psychiatrists who will examine the accused who will undergo many test that will determine him insane in the time of the crime scene. Fersh, the author of “Thinking of the Insanity Defense” stated in his book that, “ The American Psychological Association is primarily interested in providing empirical research to serve as a basis for informed public decisions, assisting the judge and jury in making legal, scientific and moral determinations, and ensuring appropriate treatment for mentally impaired offenders. The APA supports the insanity defense and believes that all mentally impaired defendants, regardless of guilt or innocence, deserve sufficient treatment following the verdict, especially if they pose a threat to themselves or others. The organization is greatly concerned over the issue of releasing dangerous individuals to society after inadequate treatment and would like to provide

There are a lot of courses of action that have to be taken when it comes to the plea. Regardless of all the processes that have to be done, it is better for a mentally ill defendant to seek this alibi. It is imperative for the accused to try to give a justification for their actions in order to avoid getting possible jail time. With the diagnosis of a mental health professional, they are able to provide verification of their mental illness. The insanity defense is the only defense that they are supplied with to defend their position in a case. According to the article, Insanity Defense: Proposals

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

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

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 the states Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas the insanity defense has been abolished due to John Hinckley being neither found or guilty by reason of insanity in his attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan. In cases where there is no option of the Insanity Defense, evidence of the defendant’s mental state may

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

“A young African-American man shot and killed an Alabama police officer in 1981. He was examined in jail and found to be psychotic then and at the time of the killing. In 1982 the Alabama Lunacy Commission found him competent to stand trial, and he was sentenced to death. He was consistently described as psychotic in prison records; but another state forensic evaluation in 1988 again found him competent. After reviewing his records and examining him, I concluded that he had been psychotic when he killed the officer and was psychotic still. A federal appeals court judge ruled that the original trial had been unconstitutional because the defendant was not competent at the time. The prosecutor declined to retry him, and he was sent to a state mental hospital.”(Beck)

While there are valid arguments for the insanity plea, the negative consequences outweigh any positive potential. Science, research, and court court cases prove that every individual should be held responsible for his or her actions despite one’s mental state. People always commit crimes for a purpose and a reason whether intended or unintended, known or unknown. Every single individual who has ever committed a crime has had a motive for his or her actions. There is always a driving force or emotion that pushes someone to act or react in a certain way. Right and wrong is basic human knowledge. If an individual has the ability to kill, to rape, or to beat another human being, then they have the ability to know their actions and know how those actions affect others. Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer made this observation regarding the insanity plea: “It is absurd to permit the heinousness of a crime to become self-acquitting. That sets up a perverse standard: the more terrible the crime, the crazier, therefore the less culpable the criminal. The man who commits incomprehensible torture is acquitted. The father who steals bread to feed his children is convicted” (qtd. in “So Guilty They’re Innocent”). Furthermore, if someone has the ability to kill, to rape, or to beat, then they have the ability to be incarcerated and held responsible for their

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

“Totally deprived of his understanding and memory so as not to know what he [was] doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast” (Feigl 1995, 161).” What first started off as “complete madness” had evolved to the “Wild Beast” test after the twentieth century. Feigl had the perception that if a person does not understand what they had committed was wrong, then they have truly lost their humanity in an abyss of illusion. The Insanity Plea acts as a loop hole for defendants to be set free of any charges of the heinous crimes they committed. They should be able to find help and serve their charges at the same time. If states adopted the Guilty, But Mentally Insane verdict defendants and the community would all be in good hands. Defendants will be seeking help while serving their time. The community will find that justice was served.

Few topics have the power to split professionals so greatly. Not guilty by reason of insanity is one of those very topics in the law field. Psychologists and lawyers alike have strong views of why the plea is useful and why it is harmful. Case history has swayed public opinion in multiple different ways when looking at the plea. Certain cases have shown the public why the plea is needed while others demonstrated just how outraged the public can become if the plea is successful. Many scholars believe the plea should be abolished, while others state that it is a necessary part of the legal system. To understand the plea, it is important to understand the

The insanity defense was first used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife 's lover, Philip Barton Key. The insanity defense asserts that a criminal defendant should not be found guilty due to the defendant 's “insanity,” but insanity in this context refers to a very specific dysfunction. The theory behind the defense is that a person who is insane lacks the intent required to perform a criminal act because the person either does not know that the act is wrong or cannot control his or her actions even when the person understands that the act is wrong. The insanity defense can in three ways: the insanity plea is rejected, the defendant is convicted as “guilty but mentally insane,” or the

Since the concept of free will cannot be explained in medical terms and there is no sure-way to measure insanity, it does not make any sense to allow the prosecution and defendants’ psychiatrists argue over the

We do not believe the jury in Anatomy of Murder was correct to acquit Manion based on the irresistible impulse variation of the insanity defense. Although the insanity defense is a legitimate defense to use during trials, the crime itself, by the accuser, should still be regarded as such. Instead of acquitting Manion completely and letting him go free of murder, the jury and judge should have ordered Manion to go through several supervised mental health recovery programs. We believe that it is extremely unfair and unjust for an accuser to be fully acquitted of a crime due to the negligence of their health or their lack of overall expectancy. Despite the fact that many suffer from mental health, the act of killing, such as the one in this film,