John Hinckley’s trial ended in 1982 with the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. About a year before, Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he was infatuated with the famous actress Jodie Foster. He thought shooting Reagan would impress her and lead her to fall in love with him. After the verdict was announced, the public responded with dismay because they felt as though Hinckley should pay for what he had done. Following the uproar, the United States revised and limited the insanity plea with the hopes that fewer people would use it or actually receive the verdict (Hans). While on trial for any type of crime, the defendant always has the opportunity to plea not guilty by reason of insanity. However, after entering that plea, he or she has to go through extensive testing to determine whether or not insanity is truly present. Throughout this country, varying views concerning the insanity plea exist. Some believe the insanity plea should be restored to what it had been previously while some believe it works just fine now, and others think it should be abolished all together. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...ict." Public Opinion Quarterly 47 (1983): 202-212. Oxford Journals. Web. 5 Feb. 2012. 47/2/202.short>. Palermo, George B. Severe Personality-Disordered Defendants and the Insanity Plea in the United States: A Proposal for Change. Netherlands: Boom Legal Publishers, 2010. Web. 5 Feb. 2012 . Phillips, Jean K. Gilles and Woodman, Rebecca E. The Insanity of the Mens Rea Model: Due Process and the Abolition of the Insanity Defense. 2007. Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Web. 7 Feb. 2012. . Silver, Eric, Carmen Cirincione, and Henry J. Steadman "Demythologizing Inaccurate Perceptions of the Insanity Defense." Law and Human Behavior 18.1 (1994): 63-70. SpringerLink. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. .
The Insanity Plea is a book about the Uses & Abuses of the Insanity Defense in
had done. Even though Gacy tried the insanity plea and the psychologists found no psychosis,
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.
With murder charges of fifteen people, cannibalism, and necrophilia hanging over his head, Jeffery Dahmer plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Since Dahmer was a child he had shown withdraws and avoidance of society. He had a habit of collecting dead animals, and he would dissect, dissolve them in many different ways. When Dahmers plea of insanity was rejected by the court, he was then charged with fifteen counts of murder (Yoong). Many believe that when Jeffrey Dahmer 's plea was rejected that it was the end of anyone using, but that isn’t the case. It is used quite rarely, but it is still in use. In all reality, the insanity plea should always be rejected. The only way it should be allowed is if the criminal is fully innocent. “The insanity
There are other causes that are independent of the above; a good example is probably the famous case of Susan Smith who was accused in 1994 of drowning all her two children in the lake . In her hearing, she pleaded insanity but she was sentenced to life imprisonment when the court found out that she had murdered her children because her boyfriend did not want children and she wanted to be with him.
What’s more, the success rate of those cases is only about 26%. Insanity defense can be a possible escape to crime, but in order to state as true the defense of insanity or the insanity plea, the person who is being sued or was sued must declare that he/she is not responsible for his/her actions because of their mental health problem. That person must strongly express that he/she was not aware of the actions. Usually, the first thing that is done in a person’s insanity plea is that he /she needs to go through a thorough mental process. Psychologists or Psychiatrists can help the process on how to figure out the person’s actual state of mind during the crime. However, they are not in the position to decide whether the person is really insane. Only the jury can decide whether the statements in court or the findings support the criminal insanity defense. If the court finds the person is guilty for the possible crime but she or she was not mentally responsible during the time that the crime was committed, often, they will be sent to a psychiatric hospital or placed in a mental hospital for the criminally insane. Usually, punishment is not forever; it will only last until the person is no longer a threat to the people of the world. There are cases where they claim insanity only lasts a certain period of time. This kind of defense is very hard to prove. If the person declares that their
In the United States, trials in which a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity represent 1% of all the criminal cases, and the defense is lawfully verified in only 25% of these cases (Giannetakis, 2011). The not guilty by reason of insanity plea, or NGRI, is a legal defense a defendant might use to argue that he or she was not guilty of a crime because of insanity (Butcher, Hooley, & Mineka, 2014). The effort to define insanity in a legal sense begins in 1843 and carries on until 1984. Starting with “The M’Naghten Rule” or the “knowing right from wrong” rule because people are presumed to be stable ,but it can be exposed that at the time of the act they were committing, they were struggling under such a flaw of reason (from disease of the mind) that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were committing or, if they did know they were committing the act, they did not know that what they were doing was wrong (Butcher, et. al, 2014). Secondly there was the Irresistible Impulse Rule in 1887, which suggests that the defendants might not be accountable for their acts, even when they knew that what they were doing was wrong ( according to the M’Naghten rule)- if they had lost the control to choose from right and wrong. That is, they could not dodge doing the act in question because they were compelled beyond their will to commit the act. Moving on to 1954, Judge David Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was not confident in the prior precedents permissible for an adequate submission of established scientific knowledge of mental illness ,and recommended a test that would be based on this knowledge. Under this rule, which is often referred to as the “product test” (Durham Rule), the accused is not illegitim...
When someone commits a crime, he or she may use mental illness as a defense. This is called an insanity plea or insanity defense. What the insanity defense does is try to give the alleged perpetrator a fair trial. At least in extreme cases, society agrees with this principle. The problem is where do we draw the line. Under what circumstances is a person considered insane, and when are they not? The trouble with the insanity defense in recent years is the assumption that virtually all criminals have some sort of mental problem. One important point is that the crime itself, no matter how appalling, does not demonstrate insanity. Today, the insanity defense has become a major issue within the legal system. If the defendant is clearly out of touch with reality, the police and district attorney ordinarily agree to bypass the trial and let the defendant enter a mental hospital.
Courts, are usually established to either declare a defendant innocent or announce him guilty with a particular sentence depending strictly on the crime. However, the Yuma Mental Health Court is like no other court in the U.S Criminal Justice System. This unique court has specifically been established for two main reasons. The first reason, is to maintain mental ill defendants out of any jails or prisons, in order for them to receive proper treatments. The next reason, is that this court tries to help special defendants by sending them to treatment agencies so they can either be provided with medications or get some form of therapy. Yuma County is very fortunate to have this type of court in their area. In this writing, this author will analyze
had done. Even though Gacy tried the insanity plea and the psychologists found no psychosis,
In the 1959 film Anatomy of a Murder Lieutenant Frederick Manion is accused and tried for the murder of Barney Quill; the accused rapist of Mrs. Manion, the wife of the defendant. Citing temporary insanity due to an “irresistible impulse” to seek justice for his wife’s rape, a jury finds Lt. Manion not guilty in the death of Barney Quill by reason of insanity Although the Hollywood interpretation of the insanity defense in Anatomy of a Murder results in a verdict favorable to the defense, this is not typically the case in real life criminal trials due to the specificity of circumstances that are required to support that defense. Specifically, if Lt. Manion’s trial were a real case and tried in the state of Maryland in the year 2014, his defense strategy
v. Hinkley is a landmark case when it comes to the psycholegal issue of criminal responsibility, or mental state at the time of the offense. John Hinkley Jr. was a man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. He became obsessed with the movie Taxi Driver and an actress in the movie, Jodie Foster. He began to take on the persona of the taxi driver in the movie, who had contemplated political assassination. He wrote a letter to Jodie Foster before the attempted assassination stating that he was doing this in hopes to impress her. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity on all counts. (Linder,
This paper discusses the case of Andrea Yates, she confessed to the drowning of her five children and was charged with capital murder in 2001. The initial conviction was overturned and Yates was found not guilty due to insanity and was ordered to a mental hospital in 2006. Yates had sought help for her mental illness and was seeing a psychiatrist, who advise her not to have another child. Andrea Yates only received a minimal amount of therapeutic treatment. If the treatment was possibly longer could have help with the deterioration of her mental condition.
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 ...
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring 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 he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...