The insanity plea, or the “irresistible impulse” defense, described by Martin (1998) as “a plea that defendants are not guilty because they lacked the mental capacity to realize that they committed a wrong or appreciate why it was wrong.” Remains a very controversial within the judicial system, with many believing that the defense attempts to fake a purportedly guilty man’s insanity, more often to make sure the defendant gets a less harsh conviction or the possibility of an acquittal. While the plea is truly helpful to many who suffer from mental illness, many who do not suffer from illness try to use it as a get-out of-jail-free card.
The insanity plea’s first successful use occurred in England by a man named Daniel M’Naghten. M’Naghten believed falsely that the Prime Minister of England established a plot against him, M’Naghten decided to take action, attempted to ambush the Prime Minister, and unfortunately shot and killed his press secretary in the confusion. Established psychologists in England testified to the mental instability of M’Naghten. The jury eventually reached a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and was held in a mental institution for the remainder of his life. This ruling was then brought to The House of Lords, and 15 judges met to determine the judicial standard of the insanity plea. They established a test under the so called “M’Naghten Rule”, which Douglas states:
“Under the M'Naghten test of insanity, also called the "right-wrong test," a person was not criminally responsible if at the time of the crime, he did not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong. The jury was required to answer two questions: (1) did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime? Or (2) did the...
... middle of paper ...
...rieved November 25, 2013, from http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1494&context=ilj
Lally, S. (1997, November 23). Drawing a Clear Line Between Criminals and the Criminally Insane. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/expert1123.htm
Scott, S. (n.d.). Are They Insane?. What Makes Serial Killers Tick?. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/insane_8.html
Linder, D., Collins, K., Hinkebein, G., & Schorgl , S. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyinsanity.html
Martin, J. P. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.html
Douglas, L. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/EVOL.HTM
The Insanity Plea is a book about the Uses & Abuses of the Insanity Defense in
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.
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
Simon, Robert I. "Serial Killers, Evil, And Us." National Forum 80.4 (2000): 23. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
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
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 have a defense an accused murderer can use to show they were not in their right mind when the act occurred. This is the insanity defense. This happens in 1% of criminal trials in the United States (US). A perfect example of a case that used the insanity defense was Andrea Yates v The State of Texas.
quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not
2) Does Insanity "Cause" crime? : Thomas Szasz, M.D., The Myth of Mental Illness (1960)
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.
... 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.
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 ...
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability for a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of such defenses. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime.
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.