The legal systems worldwide have created the option of an insanity defense for those who have a mental disease or disorder. On the other hand, the community seems to believe that the insanity defense is being overused by criminals as an escape of imprisonment. Through this literature review I will try to prove whether these common beliefs are true and how easily can the criminals use such a defense. First I will show what kind of misperceptions the public holds by analyzing Borum and Fulero (1999) and Eric Silver et al. (1994). Then I will explain the factors that have been found to influence the attitudes towards insanity defense and the evaluation of such factors. Moreover I will analyze the evaluations of insanity defendants by experts and I will also include the Dutch legal processes as a European example. In order to compose this paper, firstly I ran a search in the world catalogue. There I tried to capture a general image of research that has been done concerning the insanity defense. The next step was to do another search in the Psych info catalogue where I picked the final articles that I am going to analyze here. A limitation to my research was that most research that has been done concerns the United States. This is the main reason why I will start presenting the misbeliefs and negative attitudes towards insanity defense that has been found to exist in the United States without claiming that this is an international issue. The main question of this paper is if common beliefs against the insanity defense are true or just a result of misinformation. Since I am going to analyze eight articles of research that has been done on this issue until now, it would be appropriate to clarify a few terms in the beginning. There are tw... ... middle of paper ... ...en when the Dutch legal system was perceived as balanced there were discriminations among minorities (Barendregt et al., 2008) or in the Hawaiian legal system the experts’ testimonies found to be contradicted in their majority (Gowensmith et al., 2013). Overall research needs to be done to reveal an up to date image of the attitudes towards the insanity defense in an international level. In this way we will gain a general knowledge on the issue of the insanity defense and then we will be able to make reforms wherever is needed. However reforms are not always the solution, sometimes education is. If the community was better informed about the mentally ill it would be less probable to discriminate them and be afraid of them. Eventually it seems like the fear of a public outburst makes the judges’ decisions more strict and suspicious against mentally ill individuals.
In the book Crazy in America by Mary Beth Pfeiffer, she illustrated examples of what people with mental illness endure every day in their encounters with the criminal justice system. Shayne Eggen, Peter Nadir, Alan Houseman and Joseph Maldonado are amongst those thousands or more people who are view as suspected when in reality they are psychotic who should be receiving medical assistance instead, of been thrown into prison. Their stories also show how our society has failed to provide some of its most vulnerable citizens and has allowed them to be treated as a criminals. All of these people shared a common similarity which is their experience they went through due to their illness.
The Insanity Plea is a book about the Uses & Abuses of the Insanity Defense in
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
In 1941, two brothers sat in court smashing their heads on the desks until they bled, barking like dogs, and crying sporadically. They weren’t insane, but that was exactly what the men wanted the jury to think. Anthony and William Esposito were being charged for robbing a payroll truck and shooting someone in the process. The jury was still skeptical until, ten months before the sentence, the Esposito brothers began to refuse any and all food they were offered. Almost a year later, the men were taken, in their almost dead state, to the electric chair and were executed. This is only one of the many examples of the insanity defense being abused. In this case, the criminals did not succeed in getting out of punishment, but there have been many successful cases that are being questioned too late. Although the insanity plea is important to those who have medical record of a psychological disorder, our “perfect” law needs to fine-tune the defense to prevent people from using it to escape going to jail or being executed.
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
Law Commission, 'Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism', (Discussion Paper) para 1.61, citing/referring to; N Sartorius, “Stigma of Mental Illness: A Global View” in L B Cottler (ed), 'Mental Health in Public Health: the Next 100 Years' (2011) p 213-222 & H Schulze, 'Reducing the Stigma of Mental Illness: A Report from a Global Programme of the World Psychiatric Association' (2005)
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...
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is a disease that destroys a person’s memory, emotion, and prevent one or more function of the mind running properly. The disease affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others.When a person is severely mentally ill, his/ her ability to appreciate reality lack so they aspire to do stuff that is meaningless. The sickness is triggered by an amalgamation of genetic, and environmental factors not a personal imperfection. On the death penalty website, Scott Panetti who killed his mother in-law and father-in-law reports that since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States (Panetti). The American Civil Liberties Union says that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who suffered from an earnest mental illness (ACLU).Some people apply the term crazy or mad to describe a person who suffers from astringent psychological disorders because a mad person look different than a mundane human being. The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have violated the law, we need to sustain a federal law that mentally ill criminals should not be put to death.
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.
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.
Seltzer, T., 2005, ‘Mental health courts – A misguided attempt to address the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of people with mental illnesses’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 570-586.
The sickness of insanity stems from external forces and stimuli, ever-present in our world, weighing heavily on the psychological, neurological, and cognitive parts of our mind. It can drive one to madness through its relentless, biased, and poisoned view of the world, creating a dichotomy between what is real and imagined. It is a defense mechanism that allows one to suffer the harms of injustice, prejudice, and discrimination, all at the expense of one’s physical and mental faculties.
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.