Unabomber Case 74 And The John Hinckley Jr. Trial

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

In the states Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas the insanity defense has been abolished due to John Hinckley being neither found or guilty by reason of insanity in his attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan. In cases where there is no option of the Insanity Defense, evidence of the defendant’s mental state may

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.

"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.

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.

The word insanity is used by a defender in criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime by using a mental illness as a justification. Insanity is the mental state of not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality, lack of conduct affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior (Lilienfeld 2009). In the article, Rethinking the Revolving Door Dereck Denckla argues that “while the number of people with mental illness in state psychiatric hospitals has decreased precipitously over the last thirty years, the number of mentally-ill people in jails and prisons has steadily increased (Denckla 2001).” This is because psychiatrists are leaving there patients unattended letting them cause damage to innocent people. However, threw out the years defendants have gotten away with insanity defense and delinquents now want to use this form of excuse as well. Insanity defense has made it difficult for the courts to determine an answer since they will need sufficient evidence to determine whether the defendant is guilty or freed because of psychological disorder. Cases like these should be taken to another level of

However, more recently states have been adopting a more interpretative view on the insanity plea. The American Law Institute (ALI) requires the defendants to be judged and found not guilty if either two of theses points can be adequately established in the court of law. First of all they must show that due to an mental disease or defect the defendants lacked, at the time, the substantial mental capacity either to understand what they did, and, secondly to conform their act to the requirements of the law.# In the court of law you can also plea that at the time of the crime you were in a diminished capacity, incapable of premeditation. Which means that even though you are sane in your everyday life at the time of the crime you were in a sudden mad rage, causing you to act the way you did, so therefore you were temporarily insane. While an insanity defense could be raised in almost

Over the years, the Insanity Plea has gained much fame and controversy, for both many good and many bad reasons. The fact that a person can simply plead that he or she plainly is not in the right mind, and escape the consequences of just about any crime, causes many to be outraged, and rightfully so. Along with the introduction of the insanity plea into the United States Justice System, many men and women have been able to escape proper punishment for their crimes, but also there have been necessary pleas for those who are truly insane. The United States Justice System should retain the insanity plea, and although there will be those who try to abuse the system inevitably, the right to a fair trial for all is reason enough to keep such a law.

The insanity defense, used when a defendant commits a crime but is mentally incapable of understanding the consequence of his actions, is a controversial plea that has been in existence for several centuries. The insanity defense uses the idea that the defendant committed the crime, but due to the lack of mental instability, was unable to understand that their actions are wrong. The insanity defense dates back to the 19th century. Daniel M’Naghten was a woodworker who thought that he was a target of a conspiracy with the pope and the British Prime Minister, Robert Peel.

Because of this, it is common for people to think the plea is more prevalent in cases than it actually is. It is extremely rare for an insanity plea to succeed and the public is unaware of that. Researcher Michael Faultstich (1984) wanted to examine which factors determine whether or not lay individuals believe an insanity plea. Faulstich created a study in which he approached people at shopping malls and had them react to a newspaper article. The articles were written about people who were either male or female, had harmed a male or female, had a victim who lived or died and had a psychiatric history or not. These factors varied article to article and were used to determine when the public is okay with the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. Faulstich found that whether or not the victim died and the psychiatric history of a defendant had the greatest affect on the outcome of the case. The public was more likely to accept the plea if the victim had died and the defendant had a history of mental illness. The women who participated in the study were more likely to sympathize with the defendant if he had a psychiatric history. All of these factors show how the public’s view on the not guilty by reason of insanity plea can be skewed. The participants did not have a medical expert explain the nature of a defendant’s case or point out specific examples of the illness in the individual. Overall, the public were much more likely to credit breaking a law to psychiatric history than the courts. Once again these findings demonstrate how important it is to sway the jurors opinion, not necessarily provide proof of illness (1984). If people can sympathize with the defendant then it is much easier to hand down that verdict. Primal Fear shows that when jurors hear about previous psychological issues, they are more likely to rule in favor of the defendant. Aaron Stampler

The insanity defense is perhaps the most difficult defense for members of the lay public to comprehend. On one hand, when a serial killer commits a string of horrific murders, he or she seems to fit any conceivable definition of being certifiably insane, but not all serial killers are found 'not guilty' by virtue of their insanity. On the other hand, many members of the public think the insanity defense itself is absurd and merely an excuse used by cunning defense attorneys to get their clients reduced jail time, or so the clients spend their confinement in a presumably nicer mental hospital than a prison.

The insanity defense has been a controversial issue among many individuals and legal experts. Whether or not an individual 's current mental state can get in the way of their ability to differentiate right from wrong at the time of a committed crime has been a discussion of great debate among society. Although it is rarely used in criminal proceedings its credibility is still questioned by many people. People who believe that the insanity defense should be abolished argue that the individual committed the crime regardless of being insane or not and they deserve to be punished. On the other end of the spectrum, some people believe that individuals should not be punished for the crime they have committed because they suffer from a mental illness that made them unaware of their actions at the time of the crime.

In 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate United States President Ronald Reagan to impress actress Jodie Foster. To the public’s dismay, John Hinckley Jr. was found not guilty by reason of insanity. This is perhaps one the most infamous and controversial cases regarding the insanity defense. Historically, society’s stigma surrounding mental disorders has affected millions of lives. Society fails to realize the reality of the mentally ill, believing a series of myths passed throughout the centuries. For example, out of the millions who suffer from mental disease, only a small portion can become violent. This violence is usually a factor of a psychotic episode caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Many neglect the need for an

Imagine you’re a victim of some horrible crime. You would want the person who did it to be punished. What if the defendant said they were innocent because they were unable to control themselves. That is the insanity defense. A person can say that they were legally insane at the time of the crime and evade all criminal punishment. Then the victim is emotionally damaged and a criminal is walking free. The insanity defense is not a good reason to evade full criminal punishment.

There are a total of fifty one different types of insanity defense in the United States. One for federal law and one for each of the fifty states in the US. Of every one hundred insanity defense cases, less than one is successful every year. The success rate is about .26% annually (“Insanity Plea Statistics” OccupyTheory.org). The insanity defense has been a subject for debate for quite some time due to the fact that criminals found not guilty by reason of insanity “escape punishment”. For instance, in the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, John Hinckley Jr. successfully used the insanity defense and was found NGRI and sent to a hospital for treatment. Due to the high publicity that surrounded this particular case, opinions and myths arose about the insanity defense. In order to put these beliefs to bed, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was implemented, making it much harder for someone to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In my opinion the insanity defense should be allowed as a legal defense for criminals.