The case McWilliams v.s. Dunn is about the conviction of James McWilliams, who was sentenced to death. During the trial, McWilliams made it known that he has mental disabilities which are said to have a significant fact at trial. McWilliams was then granted what is known as Ake which is short for the clause of Ake v. Oklahoma stating that “once the defendant demonstrates that their sanity at the time of offense has a significant fact in trial that the state must provide the defendant with access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examinations and evaluations which will aid in the presentation of defense.” One month after Ake was given and decided the State of Alabama charged McWilliams with counts of rape and murder.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
...92‘s Riggins v. Nevada, and 1990‘s Washington v. Harper. In Harper, the court determined that prison inmates could be forcibly medicated if they were a danger to themselves or others, and if the medication was medically appropriate. Riggins, in turn, decided that a defendant already on trial could be forcibly medicated to ensure his competency and allow for the proceedings to continue smoothly, in essence bulldozing one’s 14th amendment rights to “accomplish essential state policy” (Riggins, 1992, as cited in Breneman, 2004, p. 971). Riggins also proclaimed that forcible medication must be the least invasive means of treatment, and provide minimal side effects. Sell was clearly the child of these two rulings, fusing the competing interests of governmental prosecution with the liberty and safety of the defendant.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
The Supreme Court formulated the standards of competency in the criminal process, in the case of Dusky v, united states, 362 U.S 402 (1960). The standards set by the court are broad, vague and open-textured. It allows clinical evaluations in the interpretation and application of the test. The conviction of a defendant while he or she has mental illness or incompetence violates due process.
Gray, J. /O'Reilly, R. (2009): Supreme court of Canada's "Beautiful Mind" case. In: International journal of law and psychiatry, Vol. 32, Issue 5, pp. 315-322.
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
15) Grinfeld, M. J. "Executing the Mentally Ill: Who is Really Insane?" Psychiatric Times. Vol. XV, Issue 5. May, 1998. , Discussion of the legal aspects of criminal insanity and violence research.
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...
McKinney and Henderson, after committing those heinous acts, were charged with first degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The charge of first degree murder means that they were eligible for receiving
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
People v. Kevorkian. 248 Mich. App. 373, 639 N.W.2d 291, 2001 Mich. App. 225. State of
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
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...