Examples Of Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity

Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI) has been used and adapted throughout various court cases in history. Many specific rulings have played important roles in many high profile cases including those of Jeffrey Dahmer, John Hinckley and John DuPont. The following paper outlines various insanity rulings and specific cases they have been used in.

With this the British house of lords developed a test for insanity that still remains today.

The M 'Naugten rule was the first instance when the “not guilty by reason of insanity” was used in western cultures and is still used in some court rulings today.

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

However, following a court-ordered psychological evaluation, Judge Robert Rinfret found her to be not guilty by reason of insanity. In so doing, Rinfret ordered a new evaluation as means to determine how to dispose of her criminal case.

The history of the insanity plea is highly extensive. The highly controversial plea has given serial killers, rapists, and criminals the opportunity to get a reduced sentence if they prove that they are not mentally stable. The insanity plea has been around longer than some people may think, dating all the way back to the Roman Empire. Some of the current tests that determine if someone is legally insane are the M’Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code. People who would take these tests are well known killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.

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?

Andrea Yates was a thirty-seven year old mother who committed a terrible crime. As she drowned her five children in the family bathtub, she believed that she was “saving” them. Many horrendous crimes are committed, yet the assailant gets away with the verdict of insanity.

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 concept of insanity as a defence was established in the early eighteenth century in the Arnold’s case (1724) and was further developed in the late 18th century in the Hadfield’s case (1800), but the standart test of criminal liability was only formed after the case of Daniel M’Naghten (1843). This case established the special verdict of ‚‘not guilty by reason of insanity‘.

“They smelled too bad” was the response when saying he would never have intercourse with the dead bodies he dug out of graves (Yoong). He pleaded not guilty by insanity. Ed Gein filled his home in Connecticut with human body parts; he assembled a suit made of human skin, a belt that was made of female nipples and a lampshade formed from a human face. Gein was interested in skinning people and also the female parts. On November 1957 Bernice Worden disappeared from her local hardware store (Yoong). An Officer who was also Mrs.Wordens son, Frank decided to check out Gein’s place after finding out that he was spotted in town on the day of her disappearance (Yoong). Upon arriving two officers discovered the headless body of Bernice Worden, upside down on a meat hook. Intestines were found in a box, her heart on a plate in the dining room and the skin of 10 other faces that were preserved in a jar (Yoong).

The insanity defense is the most controversial criminal defense that is used in courts (The Insanity). Ironically, it is the defense that is used the least. According to a professor of law at Santa Clara University, Professor Alexander, the plea is only used one percent of the time, and works less than half the time it is used (Steibel). In cases where it is used, it tends to get a lot of attention from the media which provokes debate from the public (The Insanity). Critics have reservations concerning the exploitation of the plea, namely that the defendants will use to get shorter sentences or to evade a guilty verdict completely (The Insanity). However, according to a study done by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the majority of those who are judged not guilty by reason of insanity do in fact suffer from a mental illness (The Insanity). History has shown us that we need the insanity defense because a person cannot be held responsible for their crimes if they do not have the mental capacity to understand what they have done wrong or cannot stop themselves from committing this crime, it would be unjust to punish someone who does not deserve it.

A jury trial was held in April 1978 to see if Pennhurst was in violation of Romeo’s protections under the Due Process Clause (14th amendment) and his protection against cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment). The jury was in favor of Pennhurst because they did not find that Pennhurst “had been deliberately indifferent to Romeo’s medical and psychological needs” (Oyez).

For years, the insanity defense has developed and turned into a difficult but sometime successful defense system in a court of law. The exact law changes from state to state however the main idea remains the same. The insanity defense could apply or be used on a person who is considered legally insane. They must have a severe mental disease or defect and must prove they were at the time of the crime, legally insane. Also said person has to prove they didn’t know the impact, quality or the nature of their act or acts (The Insanity).

The case Stowers v Wolodzko presents complex issues concerning the liability of a doctor for actions taken following a person’s confinement in a private mental institution. During the mist of a martial conflict the husband called a psychiatrist to come to his home and evaluate his wife. A colleague, Dr. Smyk, and the psychiatrist, Dr. Wolodzko, arrived without explaining to the wife, Stowers, the purpose of the visit. Ethel Stowers was forcibly dragged from her home in ambulance and admitted to Ardmore Acres under the care of Dr. Wolodzko. During her 23-day stay, she was denied the right to write or receive letters, use the phone, or consult with an attorney. She refused treatment but was forced to submit. Dr. Wolodzko and Dr. Smyk signed