“Couch suffers from “affluenza,” according to his lawyer. Which means that his wealthy parents pretty much let him get away with everything,” explains the Time article (Grey). In 2013 Keller, Texas a sixteen year old teen Ethan Couch, was driving drunk, passed the speed limit and crashed, causing four innocent deaths. Judge Jean Boyd, was going to give him 20 years in states custody but Couch’s attorney told Judge Jean Boyd, Couch did not know the difference from right or wrong and was able to convince Judge Boyd to only give him 10 years in rehab; in which the parents were willing to pay 450,000 a year for treatment. The rehab center was like a spa or a 10 years vacation. Many people are angry because they are abusing insanity defense and should be tested. Some people don’t care and just want freedom of thoughts. Although insanity defense is sometimes abused, it is a justifiable alternative to prison. According to the article” The Durham rule was eventually rejected by the federal courts, because it cast too broad a net. Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, and drug addicts had successfully used the defense to defeat a wide variety of crimes,”(Insanity) this shows how people would abuse the insanity defense to get out of a crime. There was this case where John Hinckley schizophrenia, and was charged of assault because he beat a stranger in the bus for no reason. John was explaining he was hearing voices that he could not control. He knew what he did was wrong, but his impulse was uncontrollable, and because of his problem he was not guilty. In 1843, an Englishman named Daniel M’Naghten killed Secretary British Minister. Daniel thought British minister was conspiring Daniel. The court put him in for Insanity Defense and was put in ... ... middle of paper ... ... on trial killed a loved, anybody would want that person in prison. Even though it hurts to see a family member suffer people have to do the right thing. Works Cited “The brain in the stand.” New York Times Magazine. 11 Mar. 2007 elibrary. Web. 02 apr. 2014. “Insanity Defense.” Law. Cornell.edu. Cornell university law. Web. 1 Apr.2014. “A Prospective of Four Insanity Defense Standards.” The National Center for Biotechnology Information. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Jan 1991. Web. 14 Apr.2014. Reuters, Thomas. “Model Penal Code Test for Legal Insanity.” Findlaw.com. Web. 14 Apr 2014. Grey, Madison. “The Affluenza defense: Judge rules Rich Kid’s Rich Kid-ness makes him Not Liable for Deadly Drunk Driving Accident”. Time.com. Web. 1 may 2014. ‘The Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution Bill of Rights” Codeenforcementhelp.com. Web. 1 May 2014
The Insanity Plea is a book about the Uses & Abuses of the Insanity Defense in
Over the past few years there has been increased scrutiny on the use of the insanity defense. Some of the more notable cases are those of Chris Kyle's murderer, Eddie Ray Roth, and the Colorado theatre murderer James Holmes. Interestingly enough it seems that perhaps these two cases would have been vastly different had it not been for the backlash to the results of the Hinckley trial. These two cases are used as comparison only because of the notoriety and the amount of media coverage associated with them i.e., they are more in the public view than others. These may not be the best examples but, they do show the general pattern of insanity defense cases results that could have been vastly different had there not been backlash and subsequent
...d to a psychiatric facility, the individual must prove themselves to no longer be a threat to themselves nor to society, and once this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, only then can it be considered that the individual is "sane" and ready to return to society.
Palmer (2008) states that under the Durham rule, the jury is instructed by the trial court that in order to find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, the evidence must establish that the defendant was suffering from a diseased or defective mental condition at the time of the commission of the act charged; and that there was a causal relation between such disease or defective condition and the act. Feuerstein et. al (2005) states that the Durham rule is “considered a broadening of the insanity defense as it focuses on whether the action was the result or product of a mental disease or defect… [and] is therefore often referred to as the ‘product rule.’” As the M’Naghten rule, the Durham rule received a lot of criticism as well.
Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...
Blau, GL, H McGinley, and R Pasewark. “ Understanding the Use of the Insanity Defense. ”Journal of Clinical Psychology 49.3 (1993): 435-440. MEDLINE. 10 May. 2014.
In order to be regarded as insanity defense, defendants are usually asked to prove their insanity as an affirmative defense, either by a predominance of evidence or, in other places, by clear and persuasive evidence. However, in a few United States jurisdictions, the insanity defense has been nullified. In those states such as Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas, evidence must be shown to demonstrate that their serious mental illness resulted in a lack of mens rea (guilty mind), an essential element of a criminal case. (Encyclopedia of Law & Society: American and Global Perspectives, chapter Insanity and
The insanity defense presents many difficult questions for the legal system. It attracts attention beyond its practical significance (it is seldom used successfully) because it goes to the heart of the concept of legal responsibility. ‘‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’’ generally requires that as a result of mental illness the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. The many difficult and complex questions presented by the insanity defense have led some in the legal community to hope that neuroscience might help resolve some of these problems, but that hope is not likely to be realized. (Smith 475)
The insanity defense pertains that the issue of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which a person accused of crimes may be alleviated of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease. “The term insanity routinely attracts widespread public attention that is far out of proportion to the defense’s impact on criminal justice” (Butler,133). The decision of this defense is solely determined by the trial judge and the jury. They determine if a criminal suffers from a mental illness. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
““The Tell-Tale Heart” was written in 1843 and includes a self-defensive murderer who tells his story within the process of legal justice. A controversy over insanity defense increased from England and was stimulated by a number of factors. Daniel McNaughton argues that the defense was undermining the civil order. Also, that asylum reform and the increased popularity of what was known as “moral treatment” of the insane contributed to the public perception that to be acquitted on the basis of insanity was to avoid punishment” (Cleman).
Both legal and mental health professionals have long struggled to establish a clear and acceptable definition of insanity. Insanity is a legal term, not a psychological or medical one. The Sarasons prefer to use the term “maladaptive behavior” instead of insane or insanity. Maladaptive behavior is, “behavior that deals inadequately with a situation, especially one that is stressful” (5). Adaptation is the way people balance what they do and want to do, and what the environment/community requires of them. Successful adaptation depends on a person’s stress (situations that impose demands on him or her), vulnerability (likelihood of a maladaptive response), and coping skills (techniques that help him or her deal with difficulties/stress) (5). Consider the recent school shootings as an
Winslade, William J, Ph.D, and Judith Wilson Ross, The Insanity Plea: The Users & Abusers of the Insanity Defense, New York
The M’Naghten rule is a test for criminal insanity and states that, if at the time of the offence, the accused had a disease of the mind and that he was unable to know that his act was wrong. The application of this test determines whether the accused was sane at the time of the crime’s commission. Subsequently, by this rule, a criminal is not guilty by reason of insanity if the accused was so insane that they did not know the nature of his actions or, if he knew the nature of his action but was so insane did not know what he was doing was wrong.
In his proposal “Severe Personality-Disordered Defendants and the Insanity Plea in the United States,” George Palermo, a forensic psychiatrist, presents his thesis for the insanity plea to be reversed back to its previous definition. People who had personality disorders that could cause them to become psychotic for even a brief moment used to be eligible to receive the verdict not guilty by reason of insanity, before the United States restricted it to only people affected by mental illnesses. A mental illness is a disorder such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which can cause a person to be unable to determine whether an act is right or wrong. It d...
It is apparent that insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility share similarities and differences in their range of application and in definition. Insanity and automatism are most similar in that they both are full defences (with different outcomes) which exist when a defendant does not have the necessary actus reus or mens rea, whereas diminished responsibility is a partial defence which only applies to murder. The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defences. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.