As defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, the insanity plea is, “the claim that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions during a mental health episode,” and consequently exempts the defendant from full criminal punishment. Since 1994, it has been statistically proven that only .9 percent of criminal cases have used the insanity defense. It was also discovered that .013 percent of insanity pleas are successful. Therefore, even though many believe that some defendants take advantage of the plea, defendants should have the right to plead insane under certain conditions, because it has been proven that less than 1% of criminal cases successfully plead insane, and most of the ‘insane’ individuals are sent to psychiatric facilities, …show more content…
The first way to detect mental illness, can be through the Durham Rule. The Durham rule was derived from the 1954 Supreme Court Case, Durham v. United States, which set the precedent stating, “a defendant could not be found criminally responsible ‘if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect.” (Frontline).Although the Durham Rule was extremely popular in the mid 20th century, it began to fall in the 1970s and by 1972, a panel of judges overturned the previous precedent set, leading to the fall of the rule. Because the rule fell so quickly, it was replaced with the M'Naughten Test, which is also known as the “Right/Wrong” Test and is extremely popular today. “One of the major criticisms of the M'Naughten rule is that, in its focus on the cognitive ability to know right from wrong, it fails to take into consideration the issue of control (Frontline).To solve this situation, most states have veered away from the M'Naughten Test, replacing it with the ‘irresistible impulse test,’ which has been statistically proven to “absolve a defendant who can distinguish right from wrong, but is nonetheless unable to stop himself from committing an act he knows to be wrong.” (Frontline). This test is also referred to as the “policeman at the elbow test,” which poses the question, would the defendant have committed the crime with a policeman standing at his elbow? Another
2.) According to Judge Joseph Colquitt (2001: 706), “[t]o date, those who would abolish plea bargaining have been largely unsuccessful. In fact, some would argue that the battle against plea bargaining has been lost.” If you agree that the battle against plea bargaining has been lost, what steps would you take to ensure the fairness and constitutionality of plea bargaining practices in light of its inevitability, and if you disagree, then what steps would you take either to limit or eliminate plea bargaining?
Plea bargaining is a tool used in the court system for the benefit and detriment of the accused for numerous reasons. Additionally, the Crown will use plea bargaining for their benefit as well. For the purposes of this paper I intend to focus on the benefits and risks for an accused person to accept a plea bargain.
Texas houses the largest prison population in the nation (National News). I am not surprised by this statement. I agree with Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson’s statement, "Texas has always been a law and order state, and the prison system has been known as a tough system”. In my opinion, Texas has high crime statistics because of the high rate of re-offenders. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, “four of ten offenders released from prison will be reincarcerated after three years”. Offenders are leaving prison without being rehabilitated for the crime they committed.
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
There are many advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the accused plea bargaining. Plea bargaining happens when the accused pleads guilty to a crime and in return the prosecution agrees on a lighter sentence or reduced charges (Siegel, Schmalleger, Worrall, 2011). In some cases the prosecution agrees to both. There are many advantages to an accused plea bargaining. Some advantages includes saving the courts money, time, and resources. There are also disadvantages to plea bargaining. Some disadvantages is that prosecutors may charged the accused with a higher charge, non-guilty defendants may plead guilty, and defense attorneys not getting paid may talk their client into plea bargaining. Criminal who chose to plea bargain also are able to move through the court process faster and resolve their case sooner.
...ng experts to identify mental health symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and identifying if any instances of malingering are present. Evaluating a defendant is essential in understanding whether or not they are capable of following legal proceedings. If an individual is in fact found incompetent, attempts to restore competency are performed through treatments with medication or mental training about legal information that is vital for them to know in their case. It is imperative to acknowledge competency to stand trial cases in the legal system to not only ensure fairness in the courtroom, but offer mentally ill defendants an opportunity to have a lawful trial depending on their psychological state.
Mentally ill offenders face many challenges while being incarcerated and after being released. Rehabilitation is effective on mentally ill offenders by reducing their symptoms of distress and improving their behavior.
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...
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
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.
... 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.
Crime can be described combination between both behavior and mental factors. This will prove incredibly crucial in the definition of crime in relation to mental illness. Many of those that commit crimes are not convicted due to their illness so it is important to note, for the purpose of this analysis, that all illegal activity is considered crime, regardless of conviction (Monahan and Steadman 1983).
In an article titled, What is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?, John Brigham attempts to explain the beginnings of psychology and law; Forensics Psychology. Brigham explains that, “forensic psychology involves the interaction of psychology and the legal process” (Brigham 274). Brigham further highlights a historical case and the precedent established by the House of Lords through the induction of the McNaughten Rule, which translates, “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing, or he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Finkel, 1988, p21; Brigham p275). Brigham explains that the concept of introducing psychology into the field of law ...
... The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defendants. 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.