Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity Analysis

Throughout the course of history, society has tried to explain and diagnose the abnormal behavior of individuals with mental illnesses. Originally, folklore and other concepts dating back to ancient times, influenced societies to define and label those individuals that expressed abnormal patterns of behavior as mad, insane and mentally ill (Henderson, 2009). Treatment and legal proceedings for such individuals often incorporated cruel and unusual punishments and in some cases even death. Over time, societal views on the available treatments and legal proceedings for the mentally ill have changed drastically. Legal defense for those with mental illnesses, known as the insanity defense became available as far back as King Henry III’s reign over England (Ahia, 2009). The insanity defense is often used interchangeably with: the insanity plea as well as the phrase “not guilty” by reason of insanity. The accepted use of the insanity plea by the defendant, an individual whom is accused of a crime, is determined by the mental health evaluations of the court’s legal standards and or by mental health professionals. The issue of mental illness and the insanity defense becomes controversial when those with mental illnesses commit heinous crimes and use the “not guilty” by reason of insanity defense. The public fears that the individuals are using a questionable and concerning defense to be pardoned for committing violent crimes and that those individuals who are found not guilty and

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

I do not believe that all individuals accused of a crime should be able to use an insanity defense because it would morally unjust. Some people who commit a crime do know what is happening and that is was wrong at the time of the cime. If the defense chooses to belive the criminal is insane then they should be given the substantial- capacity test to ensure that they did

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.

Despite the perception that anyone could potentially fabricate a story and argue for a not criminally responsible verdict, the defence of NCRMD is a difficult one to prove. Very few individuals are found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. In the cases where a trier of fact or jury has successfully accepted the defence, counsel for the defendant alongside expert witnesses, have been able to not only prove a mental disorder at the time of the offence but also have demonstrated that the accused was rendered incapable of knowing that their actions were

Not guilty by reason of insanity is defined as “a verdict rendered by a jury in a criminal case that finds that the defendant was insane at the time of committing the crime as determined by application of the rest for insanity used in the jurisdiction compare guilty but mentally ill...” (FindLaw Legal Dictionary). This means that someone who has committed a crime cannot be tried as guilty for the crime at hand due to the determination that the defendant is “insane”; “a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction...” (Google). A person who is determined “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) is sent to a psychiatric hospital for the amount of time given by a judge. The criminally insane person is given psychiatric care, whether it be prescription pills, milieu therapy or group therapy, until he or she is believed to be suitable to enter back into society. Whether the person is safe to be back in society or not is determined by a psychiatrist or doctor that has jurisdiction over the patient. The question at hand is: When is a criminally insane person able to be apart of society and apart of the real world after they are determined not guilt by reason of insanity? Criminally insane persons are a threat to society, which is why they are hospitalized. The criminally insane must reach a certain point or there must be a reason why they are finally determined able to be conditionally released. The first source presented is from “Evaluating

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

Another tricky factor in the insanity defense abolishment is the fact they different states and federal government can choose to adopt whichever alternative test they think is best for their state .They can choose to go with the M'Naghten test or American Law, both, even neither. In this case the question stands, is this fair? Is it fair that if a person who is charged with first degree murder in Alabama (which uses the M'Naghten rule) who tries to plead the insanity defense and successfully verse someone in Kansas (abolished the M'Naghten rule) with the same charges and get a worse punishment for the same crime?

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 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

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

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime