Over the past few years there has been increased scrutiny on the use of the insanity defense. Some of the more notable cases are those of Chris Kyle's murderer, Eddie Ray Roth, and the Colorado theatre murderer James Holmes. Interestingly enough it seems that perhaps these two cases would have been vastly different had it not been for the backlash to the results of the Hinckley trial. These two cases are used as comparison only because of the notoriety and the amount of media coverage associated with them i.e., they are more in the public view than others. These may not be the best examples but, they do show the general pattern of insanity defense cases results that could have been vastly different had there not been backlash and subsequent
The Casey Anthony trial has been arguably the most controversial case since the trial of O.J. Simpson and has been speculated over ever since the verdict had been given in July of 2011. It was decided by a jury of her peers that Anthony was not guilty of murder, for the death of her daughter Caylee. Many believe that Anthony should have been found guilty however, very little Americans actually comprehend the justice system.
Billy Joel once sang, “Only the good die young”. In life, it is true, the young and innocent seem to touch more lives around us than anyone else. In the Casey Anthony trial, Anthony was a suspect in the murder of her daughter Caylee. Caylee’s life shouldn’t be counted in years, it should be counted by how many lives she affected, the love she has gained, and the support the country has given her to find out what really happened. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a boy killed his father; however, both cases were challenged by the obvious and the abstruse evidence. Large cities towards the east coast, in 1982, Twelve Angry Men, and 2008, Casey Anthony Trial, affiliated with two major trials able to modify the lives of the living and the dead. For that reason, during the Casey Anthony case, jurors were conflicted throughout the trial.
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.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
...t is put to trial but rather their sanity. They are still seen as only part of a person, but what if one part of this person is criminally insane? Thus punishment for bad actions one’s alter has committed may not always be appropriate, in the case of the criminally insane.
Steve Harmon is guilty of felony murder because he participated and had knowledge about a crime that ended up in the death of an innocent citizen. The judge stated the if you believe that Steve harmon took part in the crime than you must return a verdict of guilty. I believe that Steve went into the drugstore on that day for the purpose of being a lookout. Some of Steve’s journal entry’s lead to him feeling guilty or like a “monster”.
The essay “The Brain on Trial” was published in the Atlantic in 2011. It goes into details about crimes and side effects of medication that caused mental illness. David Eagleman the author of “The Brain on Trial” is an American Neuroscientist and writer who was born in New Mexico and attended Rice University. In Eagleman’s essay, he argues that law enforcements should scientifically figure out if the convict has a mental illness so he/she can get the help they need. The two modes of discourse that Eagleman uses are cause and effect and description, he uses imagery and symbolism to portray how scientifically approaching the crimes can benefit both the law enforcement and the convict. David Eagleman also uses many data to make the research more reliable. There are many crimes till this day that are still left unsolved and has no tangible evidence to blame someone for the crime that has been committed. I have recently watched two documentaries on O.J Simpson and Amanda Knox. The two documentaries go into details about how they were the first to be blamed but yet found not guilty
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
quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not
" Mental Illness and the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. May 5, 2009. Web. 04
During Dahmer’s psychiatric evaluation, Dr. Wahlstrom concluded, “Jeffrey was suffering from a mental illness never cured for” (FBI 1992). This leads me to perceive that Dahmer must have been displaying psychotic traits that went unnoticed and undocumented during his early lifetime. I can only speculate that this uncured mental illness lead Dahmer to develop and refine his inability to empathize with society; which in turn, lead him to engage in cruelty without mentally comprehending the victim’s suffering. Although the causes for psychopathy are unclear, some suggest that psychogenic aspects can outline abnormalities which may be present in psychopaths (Schmalleger 2014). When looking at Dahmer’s distant relationship with his parents early on in his childhood, I became conscious of the fact the lack of affection from his parents which may have lead him to develop twisted views on how one should display affection to others, thus prompting him to show psychotic behavior later on in life (The profile of Jeffrey Dahmer 1996). Even though the letter of the law fails to describe Dahmer and even if he was not fit to stand trial, I believe the court would have declared him fit for trial due to the brutality of the
The Casey Anthony trial was one of those important cases. Anthony was accused of brutally murdering her daughter in 2008. The case received attention from journalists, bloggers and (of course) national news ne...
Through the use of insanity as a metaphor, William Shakespeare, Edgar Allen Poe, William Blake, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman, introduced us to characters and stories that illustrate the path to insanity from the creation of a weakened psychological state that renders the victim susceptible to bouts of madness, the internalization of stimuli that has permeated the human psyche resulting in the chasm between rational and irrational thought, and the consequences of the effects of the psychological stress of external stimuli demonstrated through the actions of their characters.
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 ...
...e phrase “not guilty by reason of insanity” in outdated. If the court established that the defendant did commit the crime, with no reasonable doubt such as Eddie Ray Routh, then the individual is overwhelmingly guilty. In that same token, if the defense can prove that the defendant is in fact insane, then the individuals sentence should be adjusted accordingly. The defendant would still be guilty, but they would still be sentenced to a mental institution.