The Insanity Of Insanity

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.

There are many different events in a person’s life that could lead them to insanity. In Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” you are dealing with a woman who is a victim of male over-protectiveness and isolation that eventually leads to her insanity. In William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” you are dealing with a man who has to deal with his father’s death and rejection from the love of his life that eventually leads him to a form of insanity. Each character handles their situations differently, but it could have gone the other way had they chose to make different decisions.

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

What is truly considered to be sane or insane can never be absolutely determined by any means, but Charlotte Perkins Gilman investigates, to the best of her abilities, who and what should be understood as sane or insane. In “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, any reader with any ability to interpret can see that this subject matter is discussed throughout the text. But which characters are really insane and what evidence is there to prove this? By using the author’s text and other credible outside sources, this paper will research the deep realms of the minds of the characters introduced in the short story, “The Yellow Wallpaper.” One of

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.

Holden Caulfield is an insane person in a sane world. What is insanity? Insanity is when you’re in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior or social interaction. This state is mental illness. Insanity is when you do things in deranged or outrageous ways that could frighten people, or make people feel uncomfortable when around you. It’s when you do things out of the ordinary; yet feel as if they are ordinary. Insanity could come about when you’re depressed, or after a traumatic event, and sometimes even by keeping all your feelings bottled up inside of yourself. Sane people are sensible, reliable, well-adjusted and practice sound judgment. It’s behavior that is expected in a society. By these

When some think of the word “insanity,” they think of crazy people, with impossible ideas and strange thoughts, perhaps people with a different way of thinking than most people do. However, what does one define as morally insane? Does the list just include cannibalism, does it extend to cold-blooded murder? In “The Most Dangerous Game,” also known by “The Hounds of Zaroff,” a short story by Richard Connell, the antagonist, General Zaroff can be perceived as insane. This is because the protagonist, Sanger Rainsford, discovers that Zaroff hunts humans for sport. However, I believe that General Zaroff is not insane, for multiple reasons. Three reasons are: clear thinking, lack of symptoms pointing to insanity, and Zaroff’s reaction at the end of the short story.

"Not Guilty, By reason of Insanity!" These words have stung the ears of many courtroom observers, especially the families and friends of victims whose lives were snuffed out by a so-called 'insane' assailant. While there are indeed many insane people running around the streets today, I feel that many persons who use the temporary insanity defense are more conniving than insane. Also, being an inexact science, the psychiatric community often offers up differing opinions as to any particular individual's sanity. Furthermore, money or lack thereof can play a major role in the success or failure of an insanity defense. The temporary insanity defense should therefore be abolished, especially for felony offenses such as murder.

A Crime of Insanity is about a 26-year old psychology student names Ralph Tortorici. One day Ralph walked into his Greek History class at his State University of New York college campus in Albany, NY. When Ralph came to class, he had a hunting knife and a rifle hidden under his clothes. When he closed the door behind him, after entering his classroom, he told his class that he was taking them as hostages.

My insanity case is People v. Wilbur, 226 Ill. App. 3d 733 (3rd Dist. 1992). In this case, the defendant was a 14-year-old being charged as an adult for a murder that happened in 1988. It was said that child showed that he didn’t regret what he had done. The child admitted to the crime. The defendant’s expert witness said that the child suffered from schizophrenia and that he has heard “voices” in his head. The jury came to the verdict of guilty but mentally ill. The 14-year-old was sentenced to 60 years in prison. The trial court case was appealed is now in the hands of the Appellate Court of Illinois. Two expert witnesses disagreed on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the murder. One saying that he was able to conform his acts to the law. The other saying, he was not. (pg. 736). The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

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.

“There is no great genius without a mixture of madness,” a quote said by the famous philosopher Aristotle. There have been times in history where madness has been faked, and many times the mad person was caught, but, it is also not impossible to fake madness. This is shown in the tragic history of Hamlet written by William Shakespeare, where the title character’s madness is definitely faked. Hamlet is a genius who uses madness to develop his idea of revenge. Hamlet has admitted to faking it, not once, but twice. He also has control over his madness, being able to switch from sane to insane in different situations. Lastly, acting impulsively could be a symptom of madness; yet, Hamlet thinks before every move. Considering how Hamlet visibly has control over his madness as well as his reasoning for wanting to act mad, it is beyond a doubt that it is faked.