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.
There is a difference between mental illness and going insane. Many problems are raised by the existence of the insanity defense. For example, determining the patient's true mental illness (whether they are faking or not), placement of the mentally ill after trial, the credibility of the psychological experts, the percentage of cases that are actually successful, and the usefulness of such a defense. The insanity defense is also seen as a legal loophole and a waste of money. Due to this, the insanity defense as a whole should be abolished in order to prevent the freed criminal from performing the same crime that put him on trial in the first place.
Being a regular criminal is different from the insane because of their state of minds. However, if a person with psychiatric disability plead guilty because there is a mental disorder present, then they would be evalutated to see if they could stand trial. The mentally ill individual may even tell someone who the devil told them to do it. Sometimes the ill individual may even stay at the crime scene because they had no idea what they were doing was wrong. If the ill or criminal go to court, they have the option to plea insane.
There are several tests that are looked at in trying to find what the cause was for all of the commotion by the defendant in the committed crime to discover the level of their mental illness, or if there is an illness at all. The Insanity Defense helps the judicial system by having those who are not mentally stable put into an institution to acquire the help that they need, rather than be sent to jail where they might go more mad. The Insanity Defense is a defendant seeking a non-guilty verdict in a criminal trial for his or her state of mind. “Insane” is a medical term, not legal (Ferguson 1) which was decided by careers in the psychiatric and legal fields. When a criminal offender has repeated abnormal behavior, antisocial conduct, is continuously displayed the defense ignores their plea and they are charged guilty.
These character traits allow the psychopath to commit his atrocious acts. However, because the psychopath is rendered incapable of moral reasoning, the criminal legal system has a problem in justifying the punishment of one, as psychopathy intervenes with the person’s ability to be a normally functioning adult. Currently, psychopathy is not recognized as a mental illness by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR. Most psychopaths end up being diagnosed with ASPD, or Antisocial Personality
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.
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. A correlation between mental disorders and syndromes are also linked to insanity but not all me... ... middle of paper ... ...annot.
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.
The infamous Jeffrey Dahmer and Hannibal Lector have been looked at multiple times and no one can get an exact reason as for why they ever committed such insane crimes. Although one is a fictional character and the other is real the common characteristic they share is a psychopathic personality. Most doctors can agree that psychopathy is a mental illness opposed to a choice of character unlike other criminals. They all tend to agree on that specific issue, researchers and doctors are unaware of proper treatments or if psychopathy is treatable. Many doctors will describe psychopaths as manipulative, with callous emotions and lack of empathy for anybody (Kerns).
Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss. This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations.