1. Competency to stand Trial: Refers to the ability or inability of a person to stand trial, and the inability could be due to an issue preventing them from being able to participate in their defense. If a person is considered incompetent, it could be for many reasons, for instance a mental or physical disorder as well as an intellectual disability. Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O 'driscoll, C. (2007). The insanity defence: From wild beasts to M 'Naghten. Australasian Psychiatry Australas Psychiatry, 292-298. 2. 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 …show more content…
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 43-47. Incompetency describes individuals who are currently unable to stand trial due to various factors. Incompetency can be a mental disorder, cognitive impairment, or intellectual disability. Defendants who are deemed incompetent are able to postpone their trial until their competency is restored. Two treatments used to restore competency are psychotropic medications and educational treatment programs. First, psychotropic medications are the most common treatment used to restore competency in defendants. This treatment is used to alleviate symptoms of mental disorders, so the defendant is able to stand trial at a later date, after the symptoms have at least partially subsided. These medications are given not to only alleviate symptoms, but also to ensure that symptoms from a mental disorder are not hindering the ability of the defendant to understand what is happening to them during the trial. This treatment is used to restore competency in those who have a mental disorder most likely a severe mental disorders. This disorder makes it difficult for them to understand and participate in legal
When a person is accused of a crime, it is the responsibility of a judge to deem them competent to stand trial, mentally unstable to at the time of their trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity. This was something that was highly disputed during and after the case of John Salvi. John Salvi was an anti-abortionist of strong Catholic faith who shot and killed two people in attacks at Planned Parenthood clinics.
In conclusion, competency, sanity and diminished capacity differ in several ways, despite the fact that, they all involve mental health. Psychologists determine the competency level of a defendant. Legislators and judges determine the sanity of a defendant. Diminished capacity deals with mental health of the defendant at the time of committing the offence. The judge and legislators determine diminished capacity. The behaviors that john smith showed in jail, at the court and during the evaluation render him incompetent.
A mentally insane person, according to psychologytoday.com, is defined as “a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality… or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive
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.
What is sit to be insane? The legal definition of insanity at Law.com states, “Mental disorder… a person who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality…” In the tell-tale heart, a story written by Edgar Allen Poe, The Narrator (the main character) plots to kill The Old Man. His reason being: he believes the old mans “vulture” eye had cursed him. The Narrator is constantly defending his sanity but evidence can prove otherwise.
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
Insanity is defined as the derangement of the mind, insane foolishness or irrationality. When committed a crime the felony is either considered innocent by reason of insanity or guilty, but what classifies one from the other? In “Lamb to the Slaughter” by Roald Dahl it is debatable whether or not the main character Mary Maloney is innocent or guilty after the death of her husband Patrick Maloney. After fully analyzing the story, Mary Maloney is an innocent victim of insanity proving this through her oblivious states of mind.
The defense of diminished capacity, also called diminished responsibility, is available in some jurisdictions. It is based upon claims that a defendant’s mental condition at the time of the crime, although not sufficient to support the affirmative defense of insanity, might still lower criminal culpability. A finding of diminished capacity may result in a verdict of "guilty" to lessened charges.
How is that even possible? The dictionary definition of the word insanity is the state of being seriously, mentally ill (“Definition of the Word Insanity”). Insanity is also classified as a medical diagnosis. Insanity came from the Latin word insanitatem (“History of the Word Insanity”). People started using this word in the 1580’s. The Latins interpreted insanity as unhealthy Modern day society uses the word insanity too loosely. Although the dictionary definition of insanity is not wrong, several cases that prove having “insanity” does not always mean “being seriously mentally ill” has came to surface.
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...
The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency due to the significance of the Dusky case. The competency standard main elements for standing trial
...nse altogether. The insanity defense is used in only about 1% of cases in the U.S. and is successful less than 25% of the time. Today many people say they are insane to get out of their punishment of the crime they committed. But this rarely works. Many people abuse the insanity plea thinking that it will give them a sweeter sentencing. Many people in the public once defendant says they are insane after committing for example a murder the public gets very angry. The reason they do this is because in the public’s eyes murder is murder. The only time the public would probably sympathize with a defendant is when they are unable to stand trial because of their psychological issues. The public usually doesn’t agree with the insanity defense and it usually makes them outraged or feels like the right justice has been served to the defendant. (Collins, Hinkebein, & Schorgl)
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability for a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of such defenses. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime.
Comorbidity, when someone has more than one condition, is very common when someone suffers from mental illness and substance abuse (Whitbourne & Halgin, 2013). Ralph Tortorici had a substance abuse problem and was diagnosed with extreme depression, fixed delusion accompanied by suspiciousness, delusional disorder, and with schizophrenic paranoid type. He was deemed incompetent to stand trial by a court appointed psychiatrist. He was later deemed competent to stand trial because his condition seemed to improve while he was in a psychiatric ward. To be competent in the state of New York, he must understand the charges against him, and help in his own defense (Frontline, 2014).
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.