Most court cases end in one of the following two ways: Guilty or Not Guilty. In addition to these simple verdicts, information is sometimes provided as to why the jury came to its conclusion. Such is the case for Not guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). While the first two scenarios are simple and fair, the last choice has raised more than a few eyebrows over time. Many believe that the Insanity Plea is a simple way to get a high-stakes criminal off the hook, though many would also disagree and say that the Insanity Plea is a justifiable resolution to court cases. To define the actual term, “Insanity Plea”, the authors Zachary Torry and Stephen Billick state that, “The Insanity Defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the defense used by some mentally disordered defendants who do not have the capacity for understanding right and wrong at the time of their criminal act.” (Torry and Billick)In another article, Neuroscience, Ethics and Legal Responsibility: The Problem of the Insanity Defense, the author Stephen Smith, gives another excellent definition, he says,
The insanity defense presents many difficult questions for the legal system. It attracts attention beyond its practical significance (it is seldom used successfully) because it goes to the heart of the concept of legal responsibility. ‘‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’’ generally requires that as a result of mental illness the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. The many difficult and complex questions presented by the insanity defense have led some in the legal community to hope that neuroscience might help resolve some of these problems, but that hope is not likely to be realized. (Smith 475)
Imagine a courtroom setting...
... middle of paper ...
...efense." Science and Engineering Ethics 18.3 (2012): 475-81. Web.
Torry, Zachary D., and Stephen B. Billick. "Overlapping Universe: Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis." Psychiatric Quarterly 81.3 (2010): 253-62. Web.
Torry, Zachary D., and Kenneth J. Weiss. "Medication Noncompliance and Criminal Responsibility: Is the Insanity Defense Legitimate?" Journal of Psychiatry & Law 40 40.2 (2012): 219-42. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
Vatz, Richard E. "Accommodating the Killer." USA Today (September 2008): 22-23. Web.
Vatz, Richard E. "Those Crazy Insanity Pleas." USA Today Magazine 135.2736 (2006): 57. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
Vitacco, Michael J., Rebecca Vauter, Steven K. Erikson, and Laurie Ragatz. "Law and Human Behavior: Evaluating Conditional Release In Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Acquittees: A Perspective Follow-Up in Virgina." Law and Human Behavior (2013): 1-11. Web
Many criminals find many ways to get out of jail or being sentenced to death, what goes through their minds? Pleading insanity means to not be guilty of a crime committed due to reason of mental illness. In many cases criminals get away with pleading insanity, but in the end does it always work out? Bruco Eastwood pleaded insanity and therefore his background, crime, and where he is now will be crucial to Brucos’ insanity plea.
Forcing someone to take medication or be hospitalized against their will seems contrary to an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment, however, the issue becomes complicated when it involves individuals suffering from a mental illness. What should be done when a person has lost their grasp on reality, or if they are at a risk of harming themselves or others? Would that justify denying individuals the right to refuse treatment and issuing involuntary treatment? Numerous books and articles have been written which debates this issue and presents the recommendations of assorted experts.
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
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
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...
The insanity defense is not widely used, and is raised in only about 1% of all criminal cases. Defendants found "not guilty by reason of insanity" are rarely set free, being instead committed to a mental hospital until confinement is no longer deemed necessary.
Byrd, S. (2005). On getting the reasonable person out of the courtroom. Journal of Criminal Law. 571-571. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/osjcl2&div=41&id=&page=
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.