“Couch suffers from “affluenza,” according to his lawyer. Which means that his wealthy parents pretty much let him get away with everything,” explains the Time article (Grey). In 2013 Keller, Texas a sixteen year old teen Ethan Couch, was driving drunk, passed the speed limit and crashed, causing four innocent deaths. Judge Jean Boyd, was going to give him 20 years in states custody but Couch’s attorney told Judge Jean Boyd, Couch did not know the difference from right or wrong and was able to convince Judge Boyd to only give him 10 years in rehab; in which the parents were willing to pay 450,000 a year for treatment. The rehab center was like a spa or a 10 years vacation. Many people are angry because they are abusing insanity defense and should be tested. Some people don’t care and just want freedom of thoughts. Although insanity defense is sometimes abused, it is a justifiable alternative to prison.
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.
In 1843, an Englishman named Daniel M’Naghten killed Secretary British Minister. Daniel thought British minister was conspiring Daniel. The court put him in for Insanity Defense and was put in ...
... middle of paper ...
... on trial killed a loved, anybody would want that person in prison. Even though it hurts to see a family member suffer people have to do the right thing.
Works Cited
“The brain in the stand.” New York Times Magazine. 11 Mar. 2007 elibrary. Web. 02 apr. 2014.
“Insanity Defense.” Law. Cornell.edu. Cornell university law. Web. 1 Apr.2014.
“A Prospective of Four Insanity Defense Standards.” The National Center for Biotechnology Information. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Jan 1991. Web. 14 Apr.2014.
Reuters, Thomas. “Model Penal Code Test for Legal Insanity.” Findlaw.com. Web. 14 Apr 2014.
Grey, Madison. “The Affluenza defense: Judge rules Rich Kid’s Rich Kid-ness makes him Not Liable for Deadly Drunk Driving Accident”. Time.com. Web. 1 may 2014.
‘The Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution Bill of Rights” Codeenforcementhelp.com. Web. 1 May 2014
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
" Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'. The Fifth Amendment in its Self Incrimination Clause.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
In order for the defence of criminal insanity to be considered, the severity of the crime but have been one that expressed the standard to be defined as indictable. This is due to the fact that a summary offence would not qualify for a trial before a jury and that absolving one of a summary offence such as driving under the influence of alcohol would be unsuitable for the asperity of the crime. As R v Porter was a murder case, therefore indictable, it would be suitable for the criminal insanity defence to be
The Bill of Rights are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights works to provide constitutional protection for the individual and to limit government power. The First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment protects the individual by allowing religious and political freedom, and by promising a public and speedy trial. The Fourth Amendment protects the individual’s privacy and limits the reach of the government into people’s homes and personal belongings. The three essential Amendments from the Bill of Rights are: the First Amendment- Religious and Political freedom: the Fourth Amendment- Search and Seizure: and the Sixth Amendment-Criminal Court Procedures.
Richard Bonnie, a Professor of law and psychiatry, leans on yes -- insanity should indeed exist as a legal defense for criminals. However, his stance on the matter focuses more on a modified variation of the existing defense used in the courts, as the defense maneuver is crucial in maintaining moral integrity of criminal law (Bonnie, 1982, p. 308). He begins with a suggestion to consider the case of John Hinckley. While hearing his argument for the insanity defense, it is mentioned how the media takes on many cases, such as Hinckley's own case, and coupled with a lack of disagreement among experts in the psychiatric field, the media has had a negative influence on the overall depiction of the defense's credibility. The idea of punishing criminals is focused upon the foundation that all humans are in full command of their faculties and should therefore be appropriately dealt with because of their own choice to engage in criminal behavior. The Hinckley case managed to open eyes to the most basic moral reasons behind the insanity defense in criminal law (Bonnie, 1982, p. 308). Bonnie asserts that while he is in strong opposition to the abolishment of the insanity defense, he does account for the fact that there can be certain cases in which this defense could be taken advantage of. It becomes necessary for the sake of preventing serious moral incidents from occurring, that the burden of presenting evidence attesting to the defendant's legal insanity at the time of criminal behavior should be left to the defendant themselves (Bonnie, 1982, p. 309). Following the morality issues regarding the application of the defense, there is also the matter of its necessity. If the defense was no longer in effect, the law would have no way of ackno...
Many prisoners in the past have been known to be killed before they were proven innocent. Many documented cases where DNA testing showed that innocent people were put to death by the government. This sometimes happens because there are defendants who are given minimal legal attention by often minor qualified individuals. The government has made many mistakes which are being wrong about convicting someone for something they didn’t do, and killing this person for the wrong reason. Putting the wrong person to death is the biggest mistake that can be made and the government cannot afford to make this mistake.
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
Don’t get me wrong, if a person proven guilty of murder, especially as heinous as this crime was, they deserve the death penalty but only if there was “no shadow of a doubt” hard pieces of evidence, more real proof, not circumstantial evidence, are connecting that person to the crime.
Palmer (2008) states that under the Durham rule, the jury is instructed by the trial court that in order to find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, the evidence must establish that the defendant was suffering from a diseased or defective mental condition at the time of the commission of the act charged; and that there was a causal relation between such disease or defective condition and the act. Feuerstein et. al (2005) states that the Durham rule is “considered a broadening of the insanity defense as it focuses on whether the action was the result or product of a mental disease or defect… [and] is therefore often referred to as the ‘product rule.’” As the M’Naghten rule, the Durham rule received a lot of criticism as well.
quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not
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...
In order to be regarded as insanity defense, defendants are usually asked to prove their insanity as an affirmative defense, either by a predominance of evidence or, in other places, by clear and persuasive evidence. However, in a few United States jurisdictions, the insanity defense has been nullified. In those states such as Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas, evidence must be shown to demonstrate that their serious mental illness resulted in a lack of mens rea (guilty mind), an essential element of a criminal case. (Encyclopedia of Law & Society: American and Global Perspectives, chapter Insanity and
““The Tell-Tale Heart” was written in 1843 and includes a self-defensive murderer who tells his story within the process of legal justice. A controversy over insanity defense increased from England and was stimulated by a number of factors. Daniel McNaughton argues that the defense was undermining the civil order. Also, that asylum reform and the increased popularity of what was known as “moral treatment” of the insane contributed to the public perception that to be acquitted on the basis of insanity was to avoid punishment” (Cleman).
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.