Insanity Defense Essay

The insanity defense is the idea that a defendant is not fully responsible for the crimes committed due to the lack of awareness at the time of the crime (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015). Sometimes, the insanity defense term can be confused with the competency to stand trial. Both terms can be related, but they differ in that competency is the defendant’s mental status at the time of trial, while insanity is the criminal’s mental status at the time the crime was committed. In the United States, the insanity

free to research the online library, Internet etc for information on these two theories), make an argument either for or against the insanity defense, that is, should it be allowed and or abolished...and specifically why? 2. Do you believe that ecological approaches have a valid place in contemporary criminological thinking? Specifically...why or why not? Insanity Defense should be abolished in that it serves as an excuse for criminals to get away with crime and as such, it should be abolished. This

“Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.” - Steve Landesberg. Insanity Defense is an excuse used in court that is arguing that the defendant who committed the crime is not guilty due to their battle with mental illness, such as severe Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar disorder, Dementia, Schizophrenia, and much more. Insanity Defense should be authorized to all fifty states because the mentally ill cannot control their mind, they are not obtained from prison, but they are hospitalized

"Insanity is defined as a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or conforming to social standards." (Insanity, pg. 1) It is used in court to state that the defendant was not aware of what he/she was doing at the time of the crime, due to mental illnesses. But insanity is a legal, not a medical, definition. There is a difference between mental illness and going insane. Many problems are raised by the existence of the insanity defense. For example

Introduction: Insanity defense is the most debated of all criminal defense approaches because it is tough to define when used to excuse criminal responsibilities. Some judges advise the jurors about criminal’s insanity and not being able to distinguish right from wrong when committing murder, yet it is up to the jury to decide if criminal should stand trial. In the late 1990’s court saw psychiatrist as another group of testimonial for jury consideration. But attorney’s claimed psychiatrist could

During Yates’ second trial, the jury was not death qualified and once again the insanity defense was used. In Texas, the insanity defense standard, essentially has to answer the question of whether or not the individual knew what they were doing was wrong, or if their mind was guilty (mens rea). The defense psychiatrist, Phillip Resnick, stated that Yates was indeed psychotic. Resnick also explained that Yates believed that by killing her children she would defeat Satan (Resnick, 2007). Yates believed

Annotated Bibliography Acorn, A. (2011). S Insanity a demeaning defense? Examining the ethics of offender pathologization through the lens of the classics. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 204-231 Acorn’s article analyzes whether the insanity defense is demeaning to the accused. The author raises the question of, whether the defense counsel directly factors individual self- respect when deciding whether to advance to a trial or not? Acorn explores this question through the works of other

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

Introduction Using insanity defense as an available option for criminals to get lesser punishment is a very controversial topic. There are many flaws within this law that should be taken into consideration when deciding if insanity defense should be abolished. Taking into account the strengths and weakness of this topic, it is clear that the insanity defense should most definitely be abolished. What about treatment? One concern that is raised when deciding if the insanity defense should be abolished

Although the idea of the “insanity defense” is state mandated and not federally acknowledged, it has drastically shifted overall throughout the course of time. The primary debate has now shifted from the sole focus on “insanity defense” to the idea of the death penalty and how it should be addressed in cases of serious mental illness or disabilities. Each state has specific laws surrounding all aspects of mental illness and how that should relate to the severity of the charges. “Currently in the