Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abuse of the insanity defense
Actus reus and its purpose in criminal liability
Abuse of the insanity defense
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Abuse of the insanity defense
“A judge's ruling today that an Irvington babysitter who stabbed her 5-year-old nephew 57 times is not guilty by reason of insanity was followed by screams of agony from the dead child's father.” (Juri, 2009)
This woman will be locked up, but in a maximum security psychiatric facility not a prison. Is this just? Is this fair? It may be. What if this woman did not know that the child was what she was stabbing? What if she saw a dog that was attacking her, or maybe she was even farther removed from reality. This is the difficulty with criminal insanity cases. Sometimes, even if the person is mentally ill a murder is a murder; theft is theft. Should criminal insanity be a useable defense in Canadian court systems?
Through the history there have been three basic definitions of legal insanity. First was the M'Naghten Rule. This rule stated that a person was only considered legally insane if they were "incapable of appreciating his surroundings"(Montaldo, 2010) due to a mental illness. This is a quite strict definition without much room for special cases. It caused a “black and white” view of criminal insanity cases. The M'Naghten Rule lasted until the 1950s when in the Durham v. United States case the court ruled that "would not have committed the criminal act but for the existence of a mental disease or defect."(Montaldo, 2010) the Durham method got a lot of criticism because it was very lenient on the definition of criminal insanity so that it almost depended on the judge to decide if the person was to be considered criminally insane or not. To address this problem a third method was created by the American Law Institute and was published as part of the Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code provided a standardized idea of crimina...
... middle of paper ...
...us reus. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/actus-reus
Burns, K. (2008, May 16). Criminal insanity . Retrieved from http://karisable.com/crmh.htm
Dryden-Edwards, MD, R. (2010). Schizophrenia. Retrieved from http://www.medicinenet.com/schizophrenia/page3.htm
Farlex, . (2010). Insanity defense. Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+insanity
Findlaw, . (2010). The insanity defense: history and background .. Retrieved from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/insanity-defense-background.html
Juri, C. (2009, January 06). Judge accepts insanity defense from babysitter in irvington child's slaying. Retrieved from http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/a_judges_ruling_today_that.html
Montaldo, C. (2010). The insanity defense. Retrieved from http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/insanity.htm
Richey, Warren. "Casey Anthony trial: Records undercut mother's testimony on Internet search." Christian Science Monitor
The M’Naghten rule required anyone who plead insanity to undergo a test of insanity, or the right-wrong test, where they had to prove at the time of the crime that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Using this test the jury had to figure out two questions. One, did the defendant know at the time of the crime what the were doing was wrong, or two, did the defendant understand what he was doing was wrong (Kollins). The M’Naghten rule was a huge step in helping with the insanity plea. Furthermore it helped ease the use of it because people had to begin to prove themselves more to the court. Having to prove themselves to the court makes it more difficult to allow them to get out of the crime they committed. In the years following many rules have been created. One of the most recently made is the Federal Rule. Ronald Reagan was a big part in having this law passed. This law states that the defendant is required to prove, “by clear and convincing evidence” that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts
On January 20, 2016, a Newfoundland Provincial court Judge Colin Flynn ruled that Nicholas Layman, a 20-year-old man who was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, is not criminally responsible due to his mental disorder. On September 25, 2014, an 11-year-old boy was playing soccer on a soccer field with more than 20 other kids, with their parents watching, and Layman ran out to the field and stabbed him several times in the chest and neck with a kitchen knife. Layman then took off in a vehicle after jumping over a fence, and was arrested 90 minutes later near his mother’s house. Layman’s parents said that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia a year before the stabbing, but the mental health professionals did not give them clear information about his treatment and thus he could not get the help he needed.
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
In order for someone to be found guilty of a crime they must have actus reus and mens rea. The insanity defense did not deal with the actus rea, but the question is whether or not the defendant knew wrongfulness of his crime. The right of this defense come from the fact that a person should not be liable if he is not capable mentally to know what he is doing and able to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Although the insanity defense tactic is rarely used and rarely successful, defense lawyers sometimes have strategy behind the weak insanity defense. The success in the insanity defense will not be to prove that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime, but to achieve other goals based on the defendant
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...
Insanity, by its dictionary definition, is the derangement of the mind. (Dictionary.com) It is used in everyday context, when people say “You are insane for not doing your homework” or “ That traffic getting out of the game was insane last night!”. However the real definition, written by Columbia University Press states that “The term insanity is used chiefly in criminal law, to denote mental aberrations of defects that may relieve a person from the legal consequences of his or her acts” (Columbia University, Press). This issue is very important because many people try to get out of their true consequences of their actions, and by using this plea, sometimes they get away with it. The Insanity Plea has been used again and again in the US courts, but it should be disproved because of the true legal definition, because many people try to fake insanity, and because of how the social concept of insanity is different than the actual mental illness.
For many years the public has fought with the idea that a mentally ill person should not be held accountable for criminal crimes (Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O'Driscoll, C. 2007). In states Montana, Idaho, and Utah, does not consent for the defendant to plea an insanity defense. The defendants must be capable to stand trial, but they do have the right to present evidence of a mental disease as evidence that they did not have the required intent ("A Crime Of Insanity - Insanity On Trial | FRONTLINE | PBS", n.d.). The state of Georgia uses a reformed style of the M'Naghten Rule ("The Insanity Defense Among the States - FindLaw", n.d.). Daniel M’Naghten was an Eng...
Insanity is a legal, not a medical definition. This makes mental illness and insanity correlate with each other, only some mental illnesses are consider as inanity. Insanity includes not only the mental, illness but also mental deficiencies. There are major problems in exactly how to apply a medical theory to legal matters. Every crime involves a physical and mental act and the non-physical cause of behavior. The mens rea is the mental element that would be required for a crime, if it is absent it excuses the criminal from criminal responsibility...
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.
Johnson, Jason B. “ Slain Teen’s family: Cops eyeing 7-10 suspects.” Boston Herald. 7 ,April 1995
Psychology in law has been a big part of the legal system for many years. Many attribute Hugo Münsterberg as the father of forensic psychology (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). He researched topics such as eye witness accuracy, confessions, suggestibility, and crime prevention in his book On the Witness Stand (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). Münsterberg paved the way for psychologists to work and contribute to the legal field. Some of the many roles of a forensic psychologist is to determine insanity and assess competency to stand trial. One particular case that interestingly involves insanity is that of Andrea Yates. Yates was found not guilty, of killing her five children, by reason of insanity. In law, acquitting someone not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) is a
A young mother had been dating her boyfriend for a few years before they had a child together. Domestic violence was a standard in their relationship. The mother began to become tired of the fighting, arguing, and accusations. One day, the mother was cooking dinner with her child on her hip. The father had come home and began arguing with her about something trivial. He grabbed the mother’s hair and began hitting her head again the cabinet. The mother reached for a knife and stabbed her boyfriend. Unbeknownst to the mother, at the time, she had cut her child too. When I first received the case, I could not believe that the mother would put her child in danger as she did. It was shocking to me that she thought to pick up the knife and stab someone
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...