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
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
I completely agree media plays a very large role in the insanity defense claim. Its portrayed in movies and TV shows often. I think that multiple evaluations should be done by more than one psychologist. I think you would need more than one opinion to determine the truth. It
The Insanity Defense 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
that their argument does not aim to diminish the rehabilitation of mentally ill, but focus more on preventing people without mental illness from using the defense. Conservative states such as Idaho have been successful in abolishing the insanity plea due to a general agreement of personal responsibility of its citizens (Geis & Meier, 1985). These states have yet to see backlash from the repeal of an insanity defense mostly due to the idea that these regions are predominantly conservative and the general population shares conservative ideals. In larger states repeal may be impossible due to the variety of different cultural and political beliefs.
Cryer et al. (2014) argue that insanity defense shouldn't be confused with defendant's incompetency. This is because individuals who are incompetent in a court of law are not able to stand their trial. For this reason, any incompetent defendant is held in a mental institution up to the period they are considered to participate or make informed decisions in the court of law's proceedings. Additionally, insanity defense that is perceived to be incompetence is separated from issues such as mental retardation. For example, a ruling that was carried out by the United States Supreme Court in 2002, Atkins v. Virginia argue that the effect of the defendants who are mentally retarded comprise of unusual and cruel punishment. This is not prohibited
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
Not guilty by reason of insanity is a defense strategy that has often been used by serial murderers in the past once an offender has been charged; however, contradictory to popular belief, this defense has been used in less than one percent of all criminal cases. According to Hickey, “The legal system uses the term insanity to define the state of mind of an offender at the time of the offense; offenders may be deemed insane at the moment of the crime and only for that period of time” (2014, p. 75). There have been four insanity defenses used in the United States to determine criminal responsibility, although only two are still in use to this day, and without much success.
To be real: I call myself crazy after checking my boyfriend’s location every hour to make sure he is where he says. Goodness, there are several conversations that led up to driving to the unknown location. Everyone can relate; but, it is a complete humiliation to those that suffer abnormal
In my opinion, the insanity defense should be in place for those individuals who are in fact mental incapable of fully understanding their actions. However, I perceive it as being used more often than actually applicable to people. Upon reading though, I was surprised that less than 0.2% of people have been found to be considered insane (Schweitzer, N.J., & Saks, M.J. (2011). As for the standards, I feel as if having either prior knowledge of the disorder or several expert opinions are needed to ensure the legitimacy of the plea. That being said, the neuroimaging should also be considered, if found to be more reliable and accurate upon further reflection. If a person is found to be legally insane, they should be treated medically as such. Furthermore,
Insanity defense should be illegal.Insanity defense is when people get convicted of murder they can they that it wasnt they’re fault and that they’re insane. To have insanit y defense you have to have a disease that infects the brain The bad side of insanity defense some people might be
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity: A Look into the Insanity Defense On Friday, March 3, 1843, the trial of The Queen v. Daniel McNaughton (West, Walk 12) began. The verdict of this trail changed the way the civilized world views the criminally insane. People who were criminally insane went from being viewed as evil and wild beasts to people who could not be held accountable for their actions at the time of the crime they committed. As time progressed, the insanity defense became an acceptable defense and rules were laid forth on how to declare people criminally insane. In this essay I will give the events responsible for the McNaughton trial and explain how it’s proceedings and verdict helped set forth the ground rules for the
The most common criteria for this defense are based on the M’Naghten ruling from 1843 (Bohm & Haley, 2012). There are also states that use the Irresistible Impulse Test (1844) and the Durham Rule (1954) (Moses, 2015). The M’Naghten ruling is also referred to as the “right-and-wrong test” and states that for a defendant to be considered legally insane they must have either, not known what they where doing or not realized that what they where doing was wrong. The Irresistible Impulse Test requires that it be proved the defendant was unable to stop themself due to a mental disease or defect (Moses, 2015). Under the Durham Rule a defendant is not guilty if the criminal act is a product of a mental disease or defect, meaning that if they where not affected by a cognitive impairment (Moses, 2015). In 1982 five states enacted laws that allow for guilty verdicts with an insanity addendum added to them, defendants that obtain these rulings are usually given psychiatric care until they are sane enough to be moved to the general prison population to serve out the rest of their sentence (Bohm & Haley,
Introduction The nature of lawful defenses, justification, excuses, and the insanity defenses studies the guidelines of controlling the different jurisdictions’ elements. This paper will examine a legal decision/case involving the defenses of justifications mentioned in Chapters 5 and 6. This paper will discuss the case which is state. Justification is a defense depends upon the need of a just cause or excuse (Schmalleger & Hall, 2014). Justification is a lawful reason for an act that signifies the defense of justification. The defense of justification in criminal law can excuse the defendant from responsibility for a criminal act where the act is seen as being required and where the defendant is required to make a choice of evils
The current American Justice System has many issues, one in particular is the insanity defense. Defendants have used this plea in courts for many years, which have led to massive debates. The insanity plea weighs heavily in our society. A society that demands for justice. However, some people praise it as if it was sent from the heavens above. On the other hand, there are many people who view it as an unnecessary evil. “The insanity defense is rooted in a basic principle of justice; this it is unfair to hold persons responsible for their actions when they don’t know, or can’t control, what they are doing” (Worth 16), it may be true that there are people out there who are truly “unaware” of their actions while committing a crime, but if they are unaware should these people still be held responsible and punished for the crime? In the editorial, “In Defense of the Insanity Defense”, by Robert L. Scandoff, the author uses credible sources, counterarguments, and does not cherry pick information; however, in the article “Abolish the ‘Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ Plea”, by the Lancaster News Era, the author uses cherry picking, connotation, and has no sources. Being able to identify cherry picking and conformational bias in a writer’s work is important because these writing techniques can either liberate a criminal or imprison a mentally ill person.