According to Jennifer Feehan, a notable authors, it is nationally “estimated that less than 1% of all criminal defendants enter insanity pleas in felony cases, and only a fraction of those are found to have been insane at the time they committed the offense” (Feehan 1). The insanity plea is one of the many issues that troubles the American Justice System and is a controversial topic to many. Why is this a topic so popular if it is such a rare defense used in court? One possible answer may be that the public may misinterpret what actually happens to someone who is found “not guilty by the reason of insanity” (NGRI) (Gilligan 135). The insanity plea is a defense mechanism used in trial to say that the defendant is not responsible and not consciously aware of what he did at the time of the crime. Some …show more content…
The insanity plea could be traced back to the 18th century when “some courts looked to whether the defendant could distinguish between good and evil, while others asked whether the defendant did not know what he did” and by the “19th century, it was generally accepted that the insanity was a question of fact, which was left to the jury to decide” (Francone). There are 4 different parts to the plea which include the M'Naghten rule, the Irresistible Impulse test, the Durham rule, and lastly the Model Penal Code. One of the “first famous legal test for insanity came in 1843, in the M’Naghten case” where Daniel M’Naghten ,an Englishman, killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister. He was acquitted “by reason of insanity, and was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life” but it did not end there (Francone). After the case was over, the event caused a public uproar, and the court was ordered by Queen Victoria to develop a stricter test for insanity. The M’Naghten rule is used to analyze the person's cognition and tell whether they are in fact insane at the time of the crime. The test that is
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.
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
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.
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
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...
Slobogin, Christopher. "The Integrationist Alternative to the Insanity Defense: Reflections on the Exculpatory Scope of Mental Illness in the Wake of the Andrea Yates Trial." American Journal of Criminal Law (2003): Vol. 30 Issue 3, p315-341.
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.
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
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
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...
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.
“About one-fourth of the states have established a separate verdict of ‘Guilty but Mentally Ill’ (GBMI)… The consequence of receiving GBMI is that the individual is convicted and given a criminal sentence. It is a verdict available to the jury when the conclusion is that the defendant committed the act charged but suffers from a mental disorder, however, not at the level necessary to meet the insanity offense,” (Torry 259-260)