Defense of the Insanity Defense: John Hinckley Jr., Jeffery Dahmer, James Holmes, and Andrea Yates: all are perpetrators of violent crimes, and all claim insanity as the reason. In recent years, it seems that the verdicts of many major violent crimes have come down to whether the defendant is accountable for their actions or if they should be held Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). This verdict more commonly known as the Insanity Defense is often seen as a way for criminals to ‘get out’ of
is a perfect example of the problems with the insanity defense plea today. Although there are a few cases in which this plea is very relevant, for the most part it is a plea used for defendants to escape full punishment for their crimes, and major changes need to be made. In order to understand the complexities of this issue, we first need to understand the basic concepts of the insanity defense plea. According to Kimberly Collins, “An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose
Insanity. When some people think of the word “insanity”, television shows comparable to Law and Order and NCIS may come into mind. Due to some of these shows, one may not fully comprehend what is insanity. In this paper I will discuss what insanity, a brief history of insanity and how it impacts today’s society, furthermore, I will also discuss my personal thoughts on the subject. What is the insanity defense exactly? The insanity defense can be defined as “A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal
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
Each state, and the District of Columbia, has its own statute outlining the standard for determining whether a defendant is legally insane, therefore not responsible, at the time the crime is committed. “An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose to follow the law; but a few select persons cannot be held accountable because mental disease or disability deprives them of the ability to make a rational / voluntary choice. Such individuals need special treatment as opposed
depression. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Pleading insanity didn't help Jack Ruby, the man who killed President Kennedy's assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, though -- the jury found him guilty of murder and convicted him. Who's to judge another person's sanity? In the end, it all comes down to how convincing their argument is. When you use the insanity defense, you're pleading that you are not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty by reason of insanity, or some variation along those lines, depending
Insanity Defense In order for someone to be found guilty of a crime they must have actus reus and mens rea. The insanity defense did not deal with the actus rea, but the question is whether or not the defendant knew wrongfulness of his crime. The right of this defense come from the fact that a person should not be liable if he is not capable mentally to know what he is doing and able to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Although the insanity defense tactic is rarely used and rarely
The first claim of the insanity defense recorded can be found in Hammurabi’s code which dates back to around 1772 BC. The Code of Hammurabi is a Babylonian law code of ancient Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia. Back when the Roman Empire ruled the government found convicted people to be non-compos mentis. This means without mastery of mind and not guilty for their criminal actions. There have been many different types of test over the years to determine if the defendant is actually insane. The first test
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
“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
The Insanity Defense Former U.S president Ronald Reagan was shot by a man named John Hinckley in the year 1981. The president along with many of his entourage survived the shooting despite the heavy infliction of internal and external injuries. The Hinckley case is a classic example of the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' case (NGRI). The criminal justice system under which all men and women are tried holds a concept called mens rea, a Latin phrase that means "state of mind". According to
1. Insanity overall: Insanity is a term that indicates the severity of mental illness of the criminally accused at the time in which their offense was committed in order to alleviate them of full responsibility for their crime. It is related to criminal responsibility because the law acknowledges that when a person is not in their right mind, or is severely mentally disordered, they are powerless in their ability to make the right choice, and lack willpower. Insanity is a defense by legal representatives
Insanity is one of those words used today that gets thrown around a lot. Our society has become so numb to it because we were it on a regular basis. Albert Einstein describes insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Albert Einstein may have been a genius, but in this case he is wrong. There are people in this world who are mentally insane and they can’t help themselves. On rare occasions people like this become killers. In the legal system we
justice and what is best for the citizens. This is our government, since its founding, they has promised to protect us and to have its best interests at heart. Somethings in our system are debatable while other should remain just the way they are. Insanity defense is one topic that is often argued much about because of its moral concern. Should a person committing a crime go straight to jail or receive treatment if they have a mental disease? Going back to the founding of America and its government, our
The insanity defense has been around for a very long time, the idea behind it is that a person who is incapable of telling right from wrong should not be held responsible for his or her actions at the time. Insanity is different from youth, and mental retardation in the fact that the person is capable on a regular basis of understanding right from wrong. The insanity defense is not something that can just be used at will, and instantly believed. Insanity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
makes people wonder is the insanity plea a great defense? Does it actually work? Would criminally insane patients be safer in prison or in a mental asylum? For many years the insanity defense has been attracting more attention than other criminal defenses in our government system. The defense has been hard yet very useful throughout the years for lawyers. Does this defense actually work for insane people? The law itself may vary from state to state but the idea of the defense remains the same in all
why they did what they did. This paper will rest mainly on the insanity plea. This paper will look at the case of John Allen Rubio and the insanity defense. This paper will provide a brief overview of the case, giving the events that lead up to the murder and the court appearances that followed. The original verdict will also be discussed and how it leads to the final verdict of the case. This paper will furthermore discuss the defense that was used and the reasoning behind
One of the most talked about and controversial defenses is the insanity defense. Case after case it seems to spark a lot of debate about whether it should be admissible or not. It is also one of the most rarely used, and rarely successful defenses. The insanity defense is a not guilty plea due to them lacking the mental capacity to realize that the crime they committed was wrong, or understand why it was wrong (Martin, 1998). This focuses on the mens rea of a crime, if they are able to differentiate
Professor of law and psychiatry, leans on yes -- insanity should indeed exist as a legal defense for criminals. However, his stance on the matter focuses more on a modified variation of the existing defense used in the courts, as the defense maneuver is crucial in maintaining moral integrity of criminal law (Bonnie, 1982, p. 308). He begins with a suggestion to consider the case of John Hinckley. While hearing his argument for the insanity defense, it is mentioned how the media takes on many cases
Fulero, S. M. (1999). “Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy”: Erratum. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), 375–394. I chose this article for my research because it not only had a Criminal Justice aspect on how the mentally ill are viewed in a criminal case but also it showed the more psychological side of how someone who is mentally ill would be prosecuted in a case. The defense of pleading insanity and how someone’s behavior truly does show that