The belief in demons and evil spirits has been around since the beginning of mankind, but should it be considered an applicable defense in the courtroom? Lawyer Robert M. Minnella thought so in the case of Arne Johnson. This case not only shocked the small town of Brookline, Connecticut, but took the nation by storm for one reason, the plea: guilty by demonic possession. After all the debacle over the case, the judge refused to accept the plea, and Johnson was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison.Through all the commotion of the trail, fame arised for many people involved and stories about what really happened started to emerge. Regardless of all the beliefs and conspiracies about demons and ghosts, demonic possession should not …show more content…
According to the article, "An important Distinction: "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" and "Diminished Capacity", written by Cornell Law School, often times, “...the defendant is actually incapable of controlling their conduct.” The case of Zakieya Avery, a woman from Maryland who murdered her two children because she thought they were possessed by demons. In reality, Avery was actually insane and had a history of mental health issues, and was administered prescription medication (Morse). Instead of being sentenced to prison, Avery will be serving out time in a mental hospital where she will be receiving help (Morse). According to the article "'Spirit Possession' and Mental Health.", written by Graham Davey, “Neuner et al. conclude that in many of the areas of the world where beliefs about spirit possession are widely held, such beliefs are a standard consequence of psychological trauma and may be a way of explaining the dissociative symptoms that often accompany intense traumatic experiences.” Because of these reasons, individuals using demonic possession as a defense, may very well be criminally insane instead of
Zonana, H. V., Wells, J. A., Getz, M. A., & Buchanan, J. A. (1990). The NGRI Registry: Initial analyses of data collected on Connecticut insanity acquittees: I. Bulletin Of The American Academy Of Psychiatry & The Law, 18(2), 115-128.
(a) Prosecutors have nearly limitless discretion in the most critical matters they must consider, yet they are held to very high ethical standards.
were not previously seen, such as hostile or mistrustful attitude towards the world, social withdrawal, feelings of emptiness or hopelessness, a chronic feeling of threat, and estrangement.” Although psychological issues develop in anyone incarcerated, those discussed are particular from the perspective of a victim wrongfully accused.
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
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.
In criminal law the principle, presumed innocent until proven guilty is sometimes twisted and altered to presumed guilty until proven innocent in many wrongful conviction cases. Many factors go into the deliberation and reasoning behind an investigators, juries and courts verdict and occasionally their decision is actually wrong and an innocent person is locked up behind bars, to serve a sentence that they do not deserve because they are not a criminal. False confessions from an innocent suspect is very common in the interrogation room and by it is their own fault because they admit to being a part a crime they truthfully were not part of due to misleading questions or statements by the investigators. Another factor that could place an innocent person in prison is wrong scientific discoveries and false DNA evidence. Doctors sometimes misinterpret injuries and causes of death and this can really alter a case's outcome significantly. Finally, witnesses may report false sightings, or report something that they thought they heard but misinterpreted it entirely. More laws should be put into place to protect the innocent suspects, and to insure that nobody goes to prison that really does not deserve it and more citizens should be trained to accurately give a description of a suspect to decrease the wrongful conviction rate.
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...
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 is a legal, not a medical definition. This makes mental illness and insanity correlate with each other, only some mental illnesses are consider as inanity. Insanity includes not only the mental, illness but also mental deficiencies. There are major problems in exactly how to apply a medical theory to legal matters. Every crime involves a physical and mental act and the non-physical cause of behavior. The mens rea is the mental element that would be required for a crime, if it is absent it excuses the criminal from criminal responsibility...
Double Jeopardy is a term used to describe a procedural defense in a criminal court system. According to the Wex Legal Dictionary, The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . ..” (Wex Legal Dictionary).
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
What is a case study? A case study is a process or record of research in which detailed consideration is given to the development of a particular person, group, or situation over a period of time. There is many different types of cases; rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping and finally murder. Case studies lead to trials;a formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings. One famous case study that went to trial was Jodi Arias Trial. Her case was her getting convicted of brutally murdering her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander.
It is apparent that insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility share similarities and differences in their range of application and in definition. Insanity and automatism are most similar in that they both are full defences (with different outcomes) which exist when a defendant does not have the necessary actus reus or mens rea, whereas diminished responsibility is a partial defence which only applies to murder. The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defences. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.
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.