Throughout the years, the insanity plea has saved many lives and kept them out of prisons. But, in the long run, is it saving or hurting more people? Although a defendant is incompetent to stand trial due to their crazed state of mind at the time in which the crime was committed, the insanity plea should not be extended to cover those who suffer severe mental disorders, but instead, these psychopaths should be put in prisons where they will be supervised and not cause harm to anyone.
The insanity plea was first recorded in the year 1581 in England. The court stated that if a “madman or a natural fool, or lunatic in the time of his lunacy’ kills someone, they cannot be held accountable.” (Insanity Defense). The British decided that a man cannot be convicted if he understood his actions no better than a child or a “wild beast” (Insanity Defense). Although today the courts no longer use the term “wild beast” or “lunatic”, the same logic is applied.
Tests such as the “M’Naghten Rule”, the “Irresistible Impulse”, the “Durham Rule”, and the “Model Penal Code” are used to determine whether a defendant was or wasn’t insane during the time in which the crime was committed. These tests are each conducted differently. The “M’Naghten Rule” proves that the “defendant either did not understand what he or she did, or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a “disease of mind” (Insanity Defense), the “Irresistible Impulse” test proves that because of a mental disorder, the defendant wasn’t able to control an impulse. The “Durham Rule” test states that the defendant’s mental defects result in criminal actions and the “Module Penal Code” tests for legal insanity, which leads us to believe that the defendant could not understand his act...
... middle of paper ...
...kipedia.
Insanity Defense FAQs. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2013, from PBS.
James Eagan Holmes. (2013, December 04). Retrieved from Wikipedia.
Michael, P. (n.d.). Competency to Stand Trial. Retrieved September 26, 2013, from PBS.
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2013, from LawInfo.
Paine, D. (n.d.). Expert Opinion and the Insanity Defense. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from Tennessee Bar Association.
Schouten, R. (n.d.). The Insanity Defense. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from Psychologytoday.
The Daily Beast. (2013, December 08). Retrieved from The Daily Beast.
US College Search Blog RSS. (2013, December 03). Retrieved from Your Current Search. wikipedia. (2013, september 09). Retrieved from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia. (2013, September 09). Retrieved from Wikipedia.
Your Current Search. (2013, December 03). Retrieved from US College Search.
The Insanity Plea is a book about the Uses & Abuses of the Insanity Defense in
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...
The criteria for insanity has changed due to the different criminal cases that people are faced with and there isn’t a fine line between sanity and insanity. From what I have researched, I find that there could be a fine line drawn between sanity and insanity. My criterion for insanity is for a person not to know the difference between right and wrong. My criteria matched well with the M’Naghten Rule which states, “Defendant either did not understand what he or she did, or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a ‘disease of mind’” (Reuters, Para. 6) I find that because of today’s society and our need to justify people’s actions, the meaning of the M’Naughten Rule and the fine line between insanity and sanity have lost their value. We focus on the being fair instead of the justice of crimes or any given action. The most important the person must go through extensive evaluation and be diagnosed with a mental disorder that may lead to such violence. Many may say that they didn’t know what they were doing but if there is a motive then that doesn’t mean that the person is insane. I have discovered that people get away with so much in result that they can plead insanity. Many criminal cases nowadays are coming out and admit that those convicted and pleaded guilty of insanity due to a mental disorder, were forging their insanity. We refuse to acknowledge that a sane person could kill people but learn that these people have the ability and desire to do such horror to other people. To diagnose someone with insanity, according to the observation of the Andrea Yates, one must suffer and be diagnosed with a form of a mental disorder.
“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...
To begin, it is important there be an established definition of insanity. Though the original work is set in the turn of the 17th century, and Branagh's in the late 19th, it is important that insanity be described based on current definitions. Antiquated understandings of the matter will provide very little as far as frames of argument. Thus, for this task, the paper will employ law.com's vast legal dictionary for a current definition of insanity. The dictionary tasks itself to such extent. It defines insanity as “mental illness of such a sever...
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...
Thorrey, Fuller E. The Insanity Offense. New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc, 2008. Print.
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.
The four types of insanity are the right-wrong test, irresistible impulses test, product test, and substantial capacity test. The right-wrong test is also known as the McNaughtan rule and it is the oldest rule that is used in twenty-eight states along with the federal courts. When it comes to this test there are two elements. The first element is the defendant suffered a defect of reason that was caused by a disease in the mind. Secondly, did they know at the time of that act the nature and quality of the act or that the act was
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...
Insanity seems to be the question in the courtroom today. What defines if a person is mentally stable or if he is sick? The government and court system has been trying to find the definite line, but there are still varying beliefs for and against whether people should be allowed to plead insanity. The definition of insanity is, “the state of being mentally ill; madness” (Oxford Dictionary). The definition of mentally ill is “psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person’s thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others” (worldiQ.com). That being said, ponder these two situations.
The insanity defense pertains that the issue of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which a person accused of crimes may be alleviated of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease. “The term insanity routinely attracts widespread public attention that is far out of proportion to the defense’s impact on criminal justice” (Butler,133). The decision of this defense is solely determined by the trial judge and the jury. They determine if a criminal suffers from a mental illness. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
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.
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.
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...