Stephen Holmes 's ' The ' Of The Insanity Defense '

When people think of an “illness” they typically don’t automatically think of mental illness. They think about HIV, cancer, or even a cold or flu. However when it comes to mental illness it is a whole different idea. But is mental illness even real? Addressed in the book, The Myth of Mental Illness (1961), a psychiatrist Thomas Szasz argues that the idea of classifying psychological and emotional difficulties as “illnesses” takes away sense of control. Instead of holding people personally and morally responsible for their actions, he states, doctors attempt to “treat” the person, often with medications. Diagnosing mental illness, on the other hand, argue that mental disorders are as real as physical diseases and diagnosing them allows people

As if molded directly from the depths of nightmares, both fascinating and terrifying. Serial killers hide behind bland and normal existences. They are often able to escape being caught for years, decades and sometimes an eternity. These are America’s Serial Killers (America’s Serial Killers). “Even when some of them do get caught, we may not recognize what they are because they don’t [sic] match the distorted image we have of serial killers” (Brown). What is that distorted image? That killers live among everyday life, they are the ones who creep into someone’s life unknowingly to torture and kill them. The serial killers that are in the movies, Norman Bates, Michael Myers, and the evil master mind of SAW, these characters are just that

The purpose of the insanity defense is to protect the defendants that are found to be mentally ill. Although insanity may be difficult to prove, it gives the opportunity for others to prove that they are not mentally competent to understand the severe degree of their actions. An accused that is not mentally stable, is not able to stand trial like every other criminal. They have to find a different approach during their trial. They cannot think rationally, and they are not in contact with reality so therefore, they have the chance to use the plea. The defense is idea to those who actually have a mental disorder or have a history of dealing with a mental disorder.

In 1981 Steven Steinberg was accused of murdering his wife Elena Steinberg by stabbing her twenty-six times in Scottsdale, Arizona (Guy, 2015). At the time of the murder, Steinberg was the one who called law enforcement to report an attempted break-in at his home, even though no signs of force entry were found at the scene. During that time, the case drew a lot of publicity in the state of Arizona; not only because it was a horrifying crime, but because it was a case that involved a murder while sleepwalking. When the police linked him to the murder of his wife, Steinberg did not deny killing his wife but argued that he was not responsible for her murder because he claimed that he did not remember what happened and that he was sleepwalking at the time he committed the crime. Despite inventing the story about an attempted break-in at his home, the jury found him not guilty on the basis of being temporarily insane at the time of the murder, and walked away as a free man (Guy, 2015).

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.

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.

Thirty-one years ago on Thursday, February 14, 1985, at about 2:00 a.m., Donna Jean Nichols was shot at very close range in the head, specifically behind the ear. In addition to the head, she was shot in the hand. The death of Nichols had nearly been instantaneous. Her body was found in a parking area along Brainerd road in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The witness, Arlinza Mobley, was just gathering cardboard and boxes discarded from businesses when he came upon another car that had just turned the tail lights on and sped away. Once the car was gone, Mobley thought he noticed a pile of rags, which turned out to be Nichols’ body.

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 book is comprised of nineteen chapters, 153 pages that are aimed at an audience of sociologists, and academicians in all areas of criminal justice administration. Its major themes are that of violence and disorganization as experienced by inmates in the 1980 New Mexico State Prison Riot and, in precise ways, it discusses the impact of such violence in the day-to-day experiences of those involved – the inmates and prison staff. This riot lasted only two days and more precisely, 36 hours, but the turmoil experienced by the inmates and prison staff during that time will last a lifetime. This book should alert prison officials of the need to run prison facilities in a humane way, but this book demonstrates almost the opposite.

On July 20, 2012 James Holmes enter a theater in Aurora Colorado and shot and killed 12 people. Attorneys tested Holmes and called for a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist stated that Holmes was so crazy that he could not distinguish what’s right and what’s wrong during the period he committed the crime. Dr Jonathan Woodcock interviewed Holmes during the time he was in jail on July 24 just four days after the shooting occurred for two hours duration. Holmes’s testimony drew questions from prosecutors that doubted his analyzation of Holmes being severe delusional during the mass shooting. Doctor claimed that they found Holmes suffering from severe mental illness and because of that it made him act violently. Holmes thought that if he snitch and went on and told the public of attempting to kill strangers he would be obligated to pay for the consequences. Doctors testified that one of Holmes delusion was to go out and do what he had to do. Woodcock was a witness by the defense to purpose the idea that Holmes was indeed crazy the moment he shot and killed people dead. Before the shooting occurred Holmes had already symptoms of mental illness disorder which made him anxious and stress and committed the crime.

Using insanity defense as an available option for criminals to get lesser punishment is a very controversial topic. There are many flaws within this law that should be taken into consideration when deciding if insanity defense should be abolished. Taking into account the strengths and weakness of this topic, it is clear that the insanity defense should most definitely be abolished.

Former U.S president Ronald Reagan was shot by a man named John Hinckley in the year 1981. The president along with many of his entourage survived the shooting despite the heavy infliction of internal and external injuries. The Hinckley case is a classic example of the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' case (NGRI). The criminal justice system under which all men and women are tried holds a concept called mens rea, a Latin phrase that means "state of mind". According to this concept, Hinckley committed his crime oblivious of the wrongfulness of his action. A mentally challenged person, including one with mental retardation, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong is protected and exempted by the court

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

The insanity defense is a very complex criminal defense plea. Over hundreds of years, the insanity defense has evolved. The correct term for the insanity defense in a criminal case will be “not guilty by reasons of insanity” (NGRI). Many people have used the insanity defense without success. When someone uses the NGRI defense it is argued that a mental illness took full effect leading to an individual to commit a criminal act. Many have tried to use such a defense, yet one after another they have failed. The insanity defense is one of the hardest, if not the hardest defense to use. Pleading insanity can be tricky. One cannot simply plead insanity and expect for it to work.

"Insanity is defined as a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or conforming to social standards." (Insanity, pg. 1) It is used in court to state that the defendant was not aware of what he/she was doing at the time of the crime, due to mental illnesses. But insanity is a legal, not a medical, definition. There is a difference between mental illness and going insane. Many problems are raised by the existence of the insanity defense. For example, determining the patient's true mental illness (whether they are faking or not), placement of the mentally ill after trial, the credibility of the psychological experts, the percentage of cases that are actually successful,