March 30, 1981 was a peaceful day. President Ronald Reagan was walking outside enjoying the fresh air when suddenly shots were fired. Six shots were fired in total, but only one shot hit Reagan due to a bullet that ricocheted. Luckily, Reagan was hit in the abdomen; therefore, he survived. The “mastermind” behind the attempted assassination was a man named John Hinckley. Hinckley believed by going through with this assassination it would be a romantic scenario for himself to confess his undying love for the actress Jodie Foster. Before long it was time for the Hinckley trial and after hearing his side of the story, the jury came to the conclusion that he was crazy. Hinckley was later found not guilty by reason of insanity and admitted to …show more content…
DiPietro ever since he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Since the 1983 shooting of three family members in Newington, one resulting in death, DiPietro, then 21, was found not criminally responsible by a three-judge panel. He was then committed to the Whiting Division for 25 years in 1984. With a three-year extension on his commitment set to expire in August, the state’s Psychiatric Security Review Board Friday voted to recommend another three-year extension for DiPietro. A Superior Court judge will have the final say on whether DiPietro remains at Connecticut Valley Hospital or is released. The security review board acted on a request for a continuation of being locked inside of forcibly kept inside somewhere by Assistant State Lawyer Vicki Melchiorre, after hearing statements in court by mind doctors on DiPietro’s mental state. The Hartford Courant reported DiPietro, on August 22nd, 1983, used a stolen .38 size handgun to shoot Lino Namasis, and the couple’s son, Ettore, after breaking into the house. He then beat the couple’s second son Mario, with a handgun. DiPietro had lived near the family’s home on Adrian Avenue. Two doctors of the mind said in court and gave proof that they believed that DiPietro believed that Mario and Ettore had been taken over by demons or evil beings. The judges decided DiPietro had committed the crimes, but was not criminally …show more content…
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
John F. Kennedy’s assassination has been a mystery since it happened in 1993. John F. Kennedy was shot in a moving car in Dallas, Texas. The murder surprised the nation in a time of peace and calmness, It was also “... the first time the vivid immediacy of such acts was brought into the homes of millions” (“The Warren
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.
On November 22, 1963, at 12:30 in the afternoon, President John F. Kennedy was shot at and killed while participating in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. The most important question that arises from this incident is ‘Who killed President John F. Kennedy?’ This is an issue which has been debated by scholars, The Government, and even common people alike. Many people seem to feel that it was a conspiracy, some large cover-up within a cover-up.
In 1941, two brothers sat in court smashing their heads on the desks until they bled, barking like dogs, and crying sporadically. They weren’t insane, but that was exactly what the men wanted the jury to think. Anthony and William Esposito were being charged for robbing a payroll truck and shooting someone in the process. The jury was still skeptical until, ten months before the sentence, the Esposito brothers began to refuse any and all food they were offered. Almost a year later, the men were taken, in their almost dead state, to the electric chair and were executed. This is only one of the many examples of the insanity defense being abused. In this case, the criminals did not succeed in getting out of punishment, but there have been many successful cases that are being questioned too late. Although the insanity plea is important to those who have medical record of a psychological disorder, our “perfect” law needs to fine-tune the defense to prevent people from using it to escape going to jail or being executed.
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
Insanity is one of those words used today that gets thrown around a lot. Our society has become so numb to it because we were it on a regular basis. Albert Einstein describes insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Albert Einstein may have been a genius, but in this case he is wrong. There are people in this world who are mentally insane and they can’t help themselves. On rare occasions people like this become killers. In the legal system we have a defense an accused murderer can use to show they were not in their right mind when the act occurred. This is the insanity defense. This happens in 1% of criminal trials in the United States (US). A perfect example of a case that used the insanity defense was Andrea Yates v The State of Texas.
There have been numerous times that the US court has publicly stated their opinion on the insanity plea. On the US Court of appeals website, it states that “The court reviewed the case and issued a ruling, which stated that a plea of insanity would prevail only if the defendant’s unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or a mental defect” (US court of appeals, page 1). The US court systems have stated many times that just because the defendant has had a history of mental illness does not mean that they are automatically acquitted. The mental illness must have a specific correlation to the crime that was committed. An example of this is shown in the Carmela Dela Rosa murder case. Dela Rosa was “charged with murder in the death of 2-year-old Angelyn Ogdoc” (Vatz)...
To be aware, most cases relating to the Insanity defense are not successful. In fact, the insanity defense is generally frowned upon. Many explain that the insanity defense is a form of absolution, dishonesty and rejection. The opponents of insanity defense argue that the accused are faking it to avoid harsher charges. According to the Braindon Gaille website (2014), a study in 1991 across multiple states, found that the success rate for insanity pleas were about 25%. One of the main proponents for insanity defense is the people who suffer with schizophrenia. However, there have been people who successfully pleaded insanity. Most importantly, the two exceptional cases come into mind when talking about successful cases concerning the insanity
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...
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.
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.
Most court cases end in one of the following two ways: Guilty or Not Guilty. In addition to these simple verdicts, information is sometimes provided as to why the jury came to its conclusion. Such is the case for Not guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). While the first two scenarios are simple and fair, the last choice has raised more than a few eyebrows over time. Many believe that the Insanity Plea is a simple way to get a high-stakes criminal off the hook, though many would also disagree and say that the Insanity Plea is a justifiable resolution to court cases. To define the actual term, “Insanity Plea”, the authors Zachary Torry and Stephen Billick state that, “The Insanity Defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the defense used by some mentally disordered defendants who do not have the capacity for understanding right and wrong at the time of their criminal act.” (Torry and Billick)In another article, Neuroscience, Ethics and Legal Responsibility: The Problem of the Insanity Defense, the author Stephen Smith, gives another excellent definition, he says,
... 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, comes from the Latin word sanus, meaning healthy. Insane is meant to be the opposite, sick or of unsound mind. # In the court of law, the jury must prove that at the time of the crime, the defendant was not in a sane mind. The attorneys job is to prove without a doubt, that the defendant was not in control of their actions, at the time the crime was committed. Once this is done and the verdict is given, if found guilty by reason of insanity, the person is usually sent to a mental hospital, where treatment can be give. Once at the hospital the patient is then give therapy and even drugs if needed. At the time when the person and the doctors feel he/she are capable of going back into society, and when they are no longer a harm, then they can be let out. This puts fear into society, because a once dangerous criminal might now be let out to the streets. However the insanity plea as been around for many years, and is not used in every court case, and there is long determination to prove that the person does have a mental illness, and to prove that its is not gear to get a harsher term.
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.