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
Michael “Meeko” Thompson has spent more than two decades locked away in the Chippewa Correctional Facility. Michael was arrested for selling three pounds of cannabis to an undercover officer. He had prior drug offenses, but no history of violence. When his house was raided after his arrest, a few antique firearms and one usable firearm were recovered. Despite the fact that the antiques did not fire and the one that did was owned by Michael’s wife, he was convicted of felony possession of a firearm along with his cannabis charges. This was his fourth offense which labeled him a habitual offender, and he was sentenced to 40-60 years in prison. He could have been sentenced to as little as five years. Notably, even the Michigan Supreme Court
The Insanity Plea is a book about the Uses & Abuses of the Insanity Defense in
Some may ask themselves, “Who is John Hinckley Jr.?” For most people, they know him as being the man who tried to assassinated former President Ronald Reagan. But why did John feel the need to kill the president and what drove him to do it. While doing the research to answer those questions into why the crime was committed, some information and fact were brought up to the surface that is quite disturbing.
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.
Goldstein's been on trial three times for the murder of Webdale. He pleaded insanity in his first trial, which ended with a hung jury, and again during his second trial in 2000, where the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder. After the highest court threw out his second case due to unsubstantiated testimony, Goldstein went to trial for the third time in 2005 -- this time he pled guilty to first degree manslaughter, and was sentenced to 23 years in prison plus 5 years of probation.
Interest and debate have greatly increased over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) plea since the 1970s. The legal definition of insanity as understood by Dunn, Cowan, and Downs (2006) is, “a person is thought insane if he or she is incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” There are several investigations needed in the area of NGRIs plea, especially in the area of gender. Research on gender is needed because of its potential to influence the presentation and formation of the rule of law. Throughout many cultures the general assumption is that men are significantly more aggressive than women, whereas women often are characterized by passive and communal traits (Yourstone, 2007 ). Public opinion on insanity cases is often viewed negatively. Furthermore, the public often believe that insanity defendants go free after they are found NGRI. However, according to Dunn et al., (2006), “the NGRI sits at the low end of the ultimate outcome measure, whereas the death penalty sits at the high end.” The public in general view a mentally ill person as dangerous. The main reason for this is the media’s inaccurate perceptions of the mentally ill as violent (Breheney, 2007). Another problem is the public generally overestimates the insanity defense success rate. According to Breheney et al., (2007), “There are nine insanity pleas for every 1,000 felony cases of which 26% (about two) are successful.” However, the argument has been that insanity defenses are used as a means of escaping severe penalties in the most serious of crimes. Several questions arise from this topic in both psychology and law. It is important f...
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals w...
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...
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.
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
In order to understand the complexities of this issue, we first need to understand the basic concepts of the insanity defense plea. According to Kimberly Collins, “An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose to follow the law; but a few select persons cannot be held accountable because mental disease or disability deprives them of the ability to make a rational / voluntary choice. Such individuals need special treatment as opposed to prison; punishment is not likely to deter future antisocial conduct of these mentally diseased individuals” (Collins). It goes along with the idea that people should only be held accountable if they are aware of the wrongness of their actions, and that confinement of people who are unaware of their actions is inhumane (Schaefer). The problem with this is that it is hard for people to objectively decide that som...
... 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.
...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)
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.
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.