Use Of The Insanity Plea In The American Justice System

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

A rule that still plays a part in many state 's insanity rulings today is the M 'Naghten Rule. This ruling from a case in 1843 looks at a person 's cognitive ability to determine sanity. It is sometimes known as the cognitive test of insanity (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2005). A person must not have known "the nature and quality of the act [they] were

The M’Naghten insanity defense is cognitive and it focus on the person’s awareness rather than their ability to control their actions. This defense requires two elements, first the defendant must be suffering from a mental defect (usually based on the testimony of medical experts) at the time that the crime is committed. Second, the trier of fact must find that because of the mental defect the defendant is not aware of the nature and quality of the crime or that the act is wrong. Some examples of a mental defect or disease of the mind as it can also be known can be diseases such as paranoia, psychosis or schizophrenia. However different jurisdictions use different standards of awareness. For example some use the terms know or understand while others use the term “appreciate”. Depending on which term is use the standard varies. If the term being used is know or understand the trier must prove that there is a basic level of awareness under the attendant circumstances. On the other hand if the term being used is appreciate the trier of fact must analyze the defendant’s emotional state. Taking all of this into consideration the M’Naghten rule faces plenty of criticism because of the fact that it does not take into consideration those individuals who might cognitively know that they are

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 Insanity defense is mentioned as confusing to the psychiatric and legal concept. Furthermore, it is explained that the word “insane” is more of a legal word, then a medical term, and therefor to prove a person or a criminal insane, one must find the mental condition, of a criminal, severely impaired to the point of losing one’s free will. A psychiatrist may be or may not able to determine such illness, and a jury’s decision solely based on a psychiatrists’ opinion may be grounded on unreliable evidence. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

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.

In his memoir Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson recounts the stories of several clients whose mental illness was ignored during their trial. Some had intellectual disabilities, others were dealing with the aftermath of severe trauma, but each one was changed in some way. Whether their reasoning had been altered or they simply did not understand what was happening, any crime they committed was closely tied to their mental state. Logically, a major detail like the defendant’s thought process and motivation behind the crime would have been discussed, but this was not the case. Any evidence of their illness was forgotten about or outright ignored by both the prosecution and the defense. When considering each crime with their mental illness in mind, sentencing the defendant to death row is needlessly cruel. Their avoidance of the topic shows a complete failure to understand how important it can be to an individual’s decision-making abilities.

Criminals with mental disorders should be held accountable for their actions and receive adequate punishment up to and including the death penalty. If they’re well enough to commit the crime that someone without a mental disorder can commit they should get the same punishment. Inmates with mental disorders are more likely to disrupt day to day prison activity, leading to needing more and more prison guards to keep the order. An estimated 283,000 prisoners are spared from death row because of a mental disorder. With that information it isn’t hard to believe that there is a big problem with overcrowding and over population. Not every single inmate is

“A young African-American man shot and killed an Alabama police officer in 1981. He was examined in jail and found to be psychotic then and at the time of the killing. In 1982 the Alabama Lunacy Commission found him competent to stand trial, and he was sentenced to death. He was consistently described as psychotic in prison records; but another state forensic evaluation in 1988 again found him competent. After reviewing his records and examining him, I concluded that he had been psychotic when he killed the officer and was psychotic still. A federal appeals court judge ruled that the original trial had been unconstitutional because the defendant was not competent at the time. The prosecutor declined to retry him, and he was sent to a state mental hospital.”(Beck)

The criminal justice system is a system of law enforcement that is involved in prosecuting, sentencing, and punishing those who have committed a criminal offence. When every member of society is aware of their individual rights and the laws enforced, the criminal justice system is very effective, but when a contributor to society is mentally insane and commits a criminal offence everything changes. In Frontline’s A Crime of Insanity, a twenty-six year old psychology student, Ralph Tortoricci, walked across the Albany campus of the State University of New York with a hunting knife and a Remington .270 rifle. He took a class hostage and later wounded a nineteen year old sophomore. Ralph obviously committed a crime but the problem is: was he

The ideological concept of an insanity defense, formerly termed “complete madness,” was originally incorporated into the English common-law jurisprudence system in the late thirteenth century of the United Kingdom as an affirmative defense for defendants under the yoke of criminal charges involving a heinous action which could involve the option of termination of a defendant’s life if adjudge guilty of such act (Hill). Through such incorporation of a legal defense, the institution of a new societal grouping known commonly as the “criminally insane” became expounded, as well as, the legal opportunity allowing for self-declaration of being “innocent by reason of mental illness or defect”(or, the insanity defense). Those criminally insane are a subset of the prison population who have been deemed to have committed their crimes under the influence of a mental disease/disorder, or who were not in a condition of intellect during the time of the crime to comprehend the illegality or immorality of their offense (Frontline). Only if the defendant has plead insanity before the court can they be considered a truly criminally insane inmate. There are manifold condemnations sustained by the judicial system ranging from guilty but insane to not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as the legal states of incompetency and diminished capacity. This distinction has become a substance of federal law, but as soon as a defendant is convicted, the treatment of the convicted individual is left

“They smelled too bad” was the response when saying he would never have intercourse with the dead bodies he dug out of graves (Yoong). He pleaded not guilty by insanity. Ed Gein filled his home in Connecticut with human body parts; he assembled a suit made of human skin, a belt that was made of female nipples and a lampshade formed from a human face. Gein was interested in skinning people and also the female parts. On November 1957 Bernice Worden disappeared from her local hardware store (Yoong). An Officer who was also Mrs.Wordens son, Frank decided to check out Gein’s place after finding out that he was spotted in town on the day of her disappearance (Yoong). Upon arriving two officers discovered the headless body of Bernice Worden, upside down on a meat hook. Intestines were found in a box, her heart on a plate in the dining room and the skin of 10 other faces that were preserved in a jar (Yoong).

I personally, do not believe in the insanity plea and I do not think it should be constitutional. It is a way for people with mental illnesses to get away with illegal actions. I believe that if a mentally ill person commits a crime, especially ones of murder, they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it because they are mentally ill. They should have to do their time, just like everybody else. If not prison, I believe they should spend quite a bit of time in a psychiatric hospital because if we just let mentally ill criminals go, not guilty, or even from prison, there is no guarantee that they won’t commit the crime because they are going to think it is okay. To stop another criminal action from happening, they should be kept in a mental hospital until they are cleared to go. In the video, the man said that people would find loop holes in the system with the insanity plea by using their drug addictions to plead not guilty for reason of insanity (Evolution of the

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

There is a defense within the legal system that has stirred up controversy for decades and that is how the insanity defense is used and controlled within the legal system. Some argue that the legal definition needs to be revamped and others argue that it simply can’t be proven legally without jeopardizing the integrity of the legal system. The criteria that has to be met in order to successfully negotiate this type of plea has been studied from as early as the 1880’s when Charles Julius Guiteau, a well-known attorney shot and killed President Garfield (Charles, 2014). He claimed that he was legally insane at the time of the shooting and used this as his defense, but medically he was a normal functioning person. While his defense did not