Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity

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

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 mentioned as confusing to the psychiatric and legal concept. Furthermore, it is explained that the word “insane” is more of a legal word, then a medical term, and therefor to prove a person or a criminal insane, one must find the mental condition, of a criminal, severely impaired to the point of losing one’s free will. A psychiatrist may be or may not able to determine such illness, and a jury’s decision solely based on a psychiatrists’ opinion may be grounded on unreliable evidence. 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.

There are a few different types of insanity pleas in the court of law; however, just because someone pleads insane will try actually be found insane. About half of the states follow the "M 'Naughten" rule, based on the 1843 British case of Daniel M 'Naughten, a deranged woodcutter who attempted to assassinate the prime minister. He was acquitted, and the resulting standard is still used in 26 states in the U.S.: A defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if "at the time of committing the act, he 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." (emphasis added) This test

It is to be submitted that the proposal of the Law Commission in the 2013 Discussion Paper presents on balance the most fitted approach to non-responsibility defences, since it eradicates the current illogical distinction between ‘insanity’ and ‘automatism’. Under this proposal, the ‘M’Naghten rule’ should be abolished and replaced by a new non-responsibility defence relevant to those cases of ‘total lack of criminal capacity resulting from a recognised medical condition (provided the other criteria of the defence are met) without limiting it to mental disorders’, assuming no culpable fault. The pertinent criminal capacities in this defence are the abilities to make a rational judgment, to comprehend the wrongfulness of a conduct and to have control of one’s body. This general defence would lead to the special verdict ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a recognized medical condition’ and disposal powers may attach. Under the ‘recognised medical condition defence’ the accused would only have an evidential burden and it would be for the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not criminally liable by reason of a recognised medical condition. Regarding automatism, the common law defence would be abolished and the reformed defence would be

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.

This defence was originally known as the insanity defence, it was changed to NCRMD in the Criminal Code in 1992 (Wilson, Crocker, Nicholls, Charette, & Seto, 2015). Review boards must take the mental condition of the accused, the safety of the public, the reintegration of the accused into society, and the other needs of the accused into account when making a disposition after the trial, these include absolute discharge, conditional discharge or detention in a

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

According to the textbook, “Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI)” verdict does not guarantee the effective treatment of the offenders while they are in prison.

The insanity defense dates back to 1843. A man named Daniel McNaughtan tried to assassinate British Prime Minister Robert Peel. He attempted to kill the prime minister and successfully killed the prime ministers secretary. When brought to court he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. He was found not guilty by reasons of insanity. The U.S criminal justice system adopted this legal procedure that now is established. The insanity plea has been used for the past one hundred and fifty years.

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

(Asokan) When the someone’s mind become so distorted that they could not could not understand the crime they have committed, they would be declared insanity and not be held accountable for the crime they have committed. A mental disease alone is not enough to get the insanity defense to work. There must be proof of the mental disease manifesting itself so much that it affects the mind, emotions, and behavior. The actual term “insanity or insane” is not a medical term. It is more of a legal term to describe the state someone was in when involved in a crime. Justice Tracy, a 13th century judge in King Edward’s court, first formulated the foundation of an insanity defense when he instructed the jury that it must acquit by reason of insanity. (Asokan) With the Wild Beast Test as the first test to determine if someone was declared insane, the jury were left to determine if the person on trial understood their actions no better than a baby or a wild beast. If someone were ever found to meet this limitation, they would never be accountable for what they have done. As time progressed the case of R vs Madfield came about. In this case the Good and Evil Test was created. Instead of the traditional “wild

This rule focuses on cognition, which alone is not enough to determine whether someone is mentally disabled. The M'Naghten rule remained the definition of the insanity defense up until 1954.