Mentally Insane but Guilty Essay

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

There are some differences between a normal criminal and a criminal that suffers from a mental illness in the criminal justice system. For example one of the many fundamentals to our criminal justice system is the principle that no one can be tried or adjudged to punishment while mentally incompetent. Trials for mentally unstable people have been modified and are run by different guidelines. Unlike a regular convict, most mentally unstable convicts are unable to comprehend or are unable to complete a trial. Once a convict with a mental illness is convicted or awaiting trail their every medical need must be accommodated within the faculty and it's staff. Without the proper medical care a person with mental illness can become

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.

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.

Many cases require alternate defences for those who suffer from mental disorders, this defence is known as Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder also known as NCRMD. A defence such as this is used to explain that the perpetrator had a disorder that made them unaware of the crime they had committed and that the crime was wrong. Applying NCRMD as a defence can be difficult as there are many requirements a person needs to meet before they are deemed not responsible. In some cases, it is hard to prove that the offender had a mental disorder at the time of the crime and that it is a valid defence as to why they committed the crime unknowingly. There is a lot of discussion around NCRMD being successful or unsuccessful and what should happen to the offender if they are deemed NCRMD. A recent case where NCRMD was used as a defence and was successful, was in the case of David Siu. NCRMD is a successful and valid defence if it is used in the right case to protect those in the system with mental disoders.

It has long been acknowledged that an offender who as a result to mental disorder, is incapable of understanding the nature and quality of a criminal act, or of recognizing that it was wrong, should not be convicted. Bill C-54 the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act deals with the accused who has been found Criminally Responsible because of mental disorder. Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) is defined in Section 16 of the Canadian Criminal Code, stating that if someone is deemed NCR he or she cannot be held accountable for the offence they’ve committed, merely if at that time they were suffering through a mental disorder. The Bill will enact three main factors which will affect the mental disorder regime

Also, did not have the capacity to appreciate criminality of their conduct to have requirements of the law.in 1948, congress pass the crime control act. Insanity how requires the defendant to prove he or she is mentally ill. When the defendants were stating their case they were a result of mentally ill. They were not accepting their crime of how wrong it was. This is to know the right from wrong.

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 prevalence of individuals with severe mental illness entering the criminal justice system creates a social injustice and substantial cost. People with mental illness cycle thorough courtrooms, jails, and prisons, generating a concern among policy-makers, criminal administrators, practitioners, families, and advocates. These facilities lack the ability to provide adequate treatment and results in a damaging cycle. In 2000, The United States Congress responded to these individuals by authorizing Policy Law 106-515 or mental health court; combining court supervision and community-based treatment services for individuals with mental illness. Policy Law 106-515 is a therapeutic court approach which seeks to provide effective treatment and eliminate

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.

The insanity defense finally received harsh critism from the public until the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Regan. On March 30, 1981 John Hinckley shot the president and several of his aids on live television. The whole world saw the shooting. There was no doubt that he did the shooting. On May 4, 1982, after a seven-week trail, in which a ton of psychiatrist testified for Hinckley's defense, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was sent to a mental hospital in Washington D.C, where he remains today. This verdict outraged American's, as it should have. How can a man who shoots another man on national television be given a not guilty verdict(Gado)?

Mental illnesses can be used as a defense when pleading guilty in a case as well. David Zink, who was to be put to death in 2001 for the murder of a 19-year-old girl, pleaded to be mentally ill in hopes of a chance to live. “David Zink kidnapped, raped and mutilated a 19-year-old girl near Stafford, Missouri.” When on trial Zink’s attorneys stated that he suffered from “antisocial, narcissistic and paranoid personality disorders”. Mr. Zink’s attorneys argued that these mental disabilities gave complete reason as to why he committed the murder and as to why he should be let off.

According to one source (2011, Black’s Law, Bryan A. Garner) insanity is “Any mental disorder sever enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility, insanity is a legal, not a medical, standard.” Another source states “In order for one person to be considered for the insanity plea, they must have a psychiatric evaluation and prove they were insane during the committing of the crime.”(1965, Psychiatric Justice, Thomas S. Szasz, M.D) If someone pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, than they undergo mental rehabilitation. The length of time in the mental rehabilitation is determined by how long it takes the individual to be mentally prepared to re-appear in court. After the individual is fit for re-trial, the individual returns to court and will than plead guilty or not guilty. In most trials, the defendant serves a punishment that is not as severe as it was

The Insanity defense is built upon the notion that individuals, who are not fully mentally aware, should be held less responsible for their actions than those who are fully aware. This assumption, perhaps important for determining moral culpability fails when it is transferred over into our legal system. As a country, we need to recognize that moral and legal responsibility are two different things which ought to be kept separate if we hope to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe in a world where mental illness is prevalent.