The Insanity Plea Is A Common Thing

There are a lot of courses of action that have to be taken when it comes to the plea. Regardless of all the processes that have to be done, it is better for a mentally ill defendant to seek this alibi. It is imperative for the accused to try to give a justification for their actions in order to avoid getting possible jail time. With the diagnosis of a mental health professional, they are able to provide verification of their mental illness. The insanity defense is the only defense that they are supplied with to defend their position in a case. According to the article, Insanity Defense: Proposals

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

Over the years the standards and requirements for the insanity plea have changed, from strict to lenient back to strict and so on. The insanity defense is not something that can just be used at will, and instantly believed. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time the crime was committed, the offender was incapable of discerning right from wrong.

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

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.

The insanity plea is a poor excuse for serious lawbreakers, and should have no bearing in the sentencing of criminals. All criminal cases today have three ways in which a defendant can plea. Guilty, not guilty, or Insanity.

The insanity plea has existed since 1724. For the defense being reserved in the United States law system, there ought to be a benefit to it. The justification for having a plea such as this is to assure that the person in question receives equitable judgement and punishment (Insanity, Wikipedia). But there are still numerous questions based on the genuinity of the plea, itself. On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley shot president Ronald Reagan in an attempt to assassinate him (Insanity, Person). When brought to trial, he pleaded insanity.

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.

The insanity defense is when the court finds the defendant insane during the time of the crime. That means that their actions were unintentional. Those that usually plea this get less time and a less severe punishment compared to those who are unable to use it. However, what many people forget to realize is that instead of going to jail where they are unable to take care of themselves they are shipped off to a mental institute where they will be monitored for a certain period of time until they are deemed ready to leave.

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 defense by excuse. The defendant argues that they should not be held criminally responsible for breaking the law because they were mentally ill or mentally incompetent at the time of their alleged criminal action. The thought behind this is that someone suffering from a mental disorder is not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong so they should not be punished. When this is the case, they are pleading not guilty by reason of insanity or NGRI.

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.

Also one could conclude that there have been different approaches and rules to the insanity defense but, the M’Naghten rule has been the best one. Some believe that there is no need for an insanity defense is another conclusion that can be made. The public often has a distorted view of the act, and believe it’s just a easy way to get out of punishment. An individual does not usually get the not guilty verdict by reason of insanity because there are certain elements of the crime that must be

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

The defences of insanity, substantial impairment by abnormality of mind and automatism play a vital role in avoiding criminal liability. Principally, the defences reflect the idea that intellectually challenged individuals should not be penalised but rather treated of their mental impairment. However the outcomes of each defence have also been criticised as ‘anomalous and arbitrary’ due to conflicting legal and medical definitions. Consequently, support for the abolishment of these defences has been proposed to be replaced by sentencing discretion so that consistent and proportionate application of the law is achieved. However ultimately, abolishing the defences is undesirable as it is both ineffective and morally wrong to punish the