Before the eighteenth century it was very common for a guilty person to try to escape harsh punishment under the plea of impulsive insanity after committing a crime. However, by the early eighteenth century it was more difficult to prove that an individual was insane after committing a vicious crime. The case of Francis Valentine Shortis was one of such cases. His lawyers had a very difficult case on their hands and the only option they felt could help their client was to use the insanity defence. Their attempt was to persuade the twelve men jury that at the time of this dreadful crime, Shortis was in fact not mentally responsible and therefore suffering from a disease of the mind. There was an extensive amounts of evidence provided from the crown about Shortis’ mental capacity that pointed toward him being a sane man, challenging the very movement of the defence case. The crown had a reasonable amount of evidence presented by Shortis' coworkers, former friends and neighbours to support their argument that Shortis was not insane and in fact, acted very intelligently.
There are no doubts that Shortis did commit some very bad things during his childhood in Ireland that would make an individual assume that he must be insane. On the contrary, some of his former neighbours found Shortis to be an ordinary boy who was playful and very mischievous growing up. According to Friedland (1986), the crown (Macmaster) stated that “he committed many eccentric, rash and even reckless acts in Ireland, but he never was arrested there or confined in a Lunatic Asylum” (p.27). One of the psychiatrists Dr. Buck during the trial testify that he did not agreed with the other psychiatrists about Shortis’ state of mind at the time of the killing. He told...
... middle of paper ...
...gs which, if it existed, would justify or excuse his act” (Friedland, 1986, p.109).
Based on the evidence and testimonials presented in the case of Valentine Shortis, there is no mistake that Shortis is indeed a sane person who committed a brutal crime. Evidence presented by the crown indicated that Shortis was sane and did know that the act he committed was wrong. Shortis tried to cover up any evidence that he had shared with his friends about the killing and robbery at the mill. He also had spoken with Millie Anderson and her brother Jack about providing him with an alibi. This shows that Shortis knew it was wrong to commit such a crime and therefore, requested an alibi as a way to be excluded as a possible suspect. Consequently, according Canada’s criminal code Francis Valentine Shortis is not insane and therefore guilty of the brutal murder of his coworkers.
Many criminals find many ways to get out of jail or being sentenced to death, what goes through their minds? Pleading insanity means to not be guilty of a crime committed due to reason of mental illness. In many cases criminals get away with pleading insanity, but in the end does it always work out? Bruco Eastwood pleaded insanity and therefore his background, crime, and where he is now will be crucial to Brucos’ insanity plea.
The diagnosis of a psychotic disorder is very broad, however the main characteristics are delusions and hallucinations caused by abnormal thinking and perceptions. Jeffery was under the delusion that what he was doing was justifiable and that he would not be caught. He was diagnosed as sane at his trial and evidence discovered during the investigation showed that he was conscious of his decisions and knew what he was doing while he was luring, murdering, and dismembering his victims.
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
...t is put to trial but rather their sanity. They are still seen as only part of a person, but what if one part of this person is criminally insane? Thus punishment for bad actions one’s alter has committed may not always be appropriate, in the case of the criminally insane.
...her was insane or just a criminal. This question was answered by his examination and a notebook given to Vacher to fill out, in an attempt to see any sign of regret which was a sign of someone without any control over their actions. The consensus was that Vacher was in fact not insane and did deserve to be held responsible for his actions, as a result he was executed.
There is no reason for why he killed the people he did but I speculate the reason he did the killings were for his low IQ and just because he wanted to do it. Nobody in this world can speculate who the next serial killer is or how these serial killers come. If I take out all the fabricated lies from Arthur Shawcross we get to understand that this man was normal or better yet did not have a hard childhood. Sometimes this is the indicator for somebody who can potentially be at risk for being a serial killer. For our guy, at least this is not the case something had to happen for him to spurt off into countless
In conclusion, Ralph Tortorici’s trial was unfair. Through his history of anger and solitary that later lead to a severe illness, the lack of proper trial due to the reason that the prosecution should not have gone forward after there was clear evidence of Ralph’s unstable mental health and the lack of support for his paranoia schizophrenia are all factors that demonstrate why Ralph was given an unjust trial.
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...
... or by giving them written tests. Some psychiatrists call mental diseases a myth. The insanity defense would require both a mental disease and a relationship between the illness and the criminal behavior, neither of which could be scientifically proven. Of the criminals both acquitted and convicted using the insanity defense, a good number have shown conclusive evidence of recidivism. Many dangerous persons are allowed to return to the streets and many non-dangerous persons are forced into facilities due to an insanity plea adding further confusion and injustice within both the legal and medical systems. The insanity defense is impossible to maintain on the foundation of rules such as the M'Naghten Rule, and the relationship between law and psychiatry must be reinstated on a more scientific level, based on the neurological work now going on in the brain sciences.
Insanity (legal sense): A person can be declared insane if they are conscious while committing the crime, committing the criminal act voluntarily, and had no intent to inflict harm. A person declared insane lacks rational intent due to a deficit or disorder, which inhibits their rational thinking
When viewed from a strictly medical, psychological aspect, Andrea Yates medical history indicates that after the birth of her first child, she began to suffer from various forms of depression and suicide attempts. If one only examines the paper trail and doesn’t think beyond what the medical history does or does not indicate, then perhaps, Andrea would be innocent by reason of mental insanity as the 2006 acquittal suggest. However, when viewed form a legal aspect there are several inconstancies that challenge if this former nurse was insane or if she in fact premeditated the murder of her children as well as her acquittal.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
In an article titled, What is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?, John Brigham attempts to explain the beginnings of psychology and law; Forensics Psychology. Brigham explains that, “forensic psychology involves the interaction of psychology and the legal process” (Brigham 274). Brigham further highlights a historical case and the precedent established by the House of Lords through the induction of the McNaughten Rule, which translates, “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing, or he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Finkel, 1988, p21; Brigham p275). Brigham explains that the concept of introducing psychology into the field of law ...
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...
The basis of insanity is upon M’Nagten Rules (1843) which set forward the principles of a defence when the “defendant had a defect of reason” or a “disease of the mind” and was not able to understand the nature of the act they did or did not know what they were doing was wrong. These three conditions must be proved for the defence of insanity to become available. Insanity is available for the all cases that require mens rea except for strict liability cases.