The insanity defense has been a topic of discussion for many years now. Since its initial appearance in 1581, it was just a simple ‘the defendant isn’t guilty because he did not understand the nature of the crime he commited.’With a majority of the cases that have been unsuccessful, there wasn’t any way to prove if they were actually insane when they commited the crime and an expert in the mental health field wasn’t there to testify their testimony. Almost all of the few that have been proven to be not guilty by insanity had a professional to testify their claim to be true. Having those people in the courtroom during the trial can help identify if the accused is actually ill by the law’s description and help those who actually are have a chance for a fair sentencing to get the help they need rather than not be and have someone who is pretending to be ill get the sentence that isn’t fit for them. …show more content…
The English legal treatise stated that “‘If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy’ kills someone, they cannot be held accountable (FindLaw, 20181).” Now, with a more developed justice system, there are multiple tests to identify if the defendant is actually insane or mentally ill. Some of the more prominent ways to prove or disprove the allegation are the Irresistible Impulse Test, the M’Naghten Rule, the Durham Rule, and the Model Penal Code. The Irresistible Impulse Test was established in 1887 during the Parson v. State trial in response to disagreement with the M’Naghten rule. Its purpose is to prove the defendant's existence of mental illness and that was the cause of the person's inability to control their actions or conform their conduct to the
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
In the 1959 film Anatomy of a Murder Lieutenant Frederick Manion is accused and tried for the murder of Barney Quill; the accused rapist of Mrs. Manion, the wife of the defendant. Citing temporary insanity due to an “irresistible impulse” to seek justice for his wife’s rape, a jury finds Lt. Manion not guilty in the death of Barney Quill by reason of insanity Although the Hollywood interpretation of the insanity defense in Anatomy of a Murder results in a verdict favorable to the defense, this is not typically the case in real life criminal trials due to the specificity of circumstances that are required to support that defense. Specifically, if Lt. Manion’s trial were a real case and tried in the state of Maryland in the year 2014, his defense strategy
The M’Naghten rule required anyone who plead insanity to undergo a test of insanity, or the right-wrong test, where they had to prove at the time of the crime that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Using this test the jury had to figure out two questions. One, did the defendant know at the time of the crime what the were doing was wrong, or two, did the defendant understand what he was doing was wrong (Kollins). The M’Naghten rule was a huge step in helping with the insanity plea. Furthermore it helped ease the use of it because people had to begin to prove themselves more to the court. Having to prove themselves to the court makes it more difficult to allow them to get out of the crime they committed. In the years following many rules have been created. One of the most recently made is the Federal Rule. Ronald Reagan was a big part in having this law passed. This law states that the defendant is required to prove, “by clear and convincing evidence” that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts
Insanity. Criminal responsibility or not guilty by reason of insanity can be evaluated through the MMPI-2. The validity scales that show if an individual is responsible by responding; knows the difference between right and wrong; or determines if the individual cannot respond to an incident the individual is accused (Walters, 2011). Bobby was aware of what he was doing, knows right and wrong; but Bobby still suffered from a mental illness. The ...
First, psychotropic medications are the most common treatment used to restore competency in defendants. This treatment is used to alleviate symptoms of mental disorders, so the defendant is able to stand trial at a later date, after the symptoms have at least partially subsided. These medications are given not to only alleviate symptoms, but also to ensure that symptoms from a mental disorder are not hindering the ability of the defendant to understand what is happening to them during the trial. This treatment is used to restore competency in those who have a mental disorder most likely a severe mental disorders. This disorder makes it difficult for them to understand and participate in legal
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...
Whether it is Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and person of the like, you may have a bad feeling about them due to their ill past. This is not due to an inner judgment of the person on your part, more than likely it is the media that has skewed your views of a serial killer. The news media is just playing their role in society and that is to inform people but they do so in a way that frightens people into coming back to view the media that they produce. The other types of media such as movies, television shows, radio stations, and books also portray serial killers as monsters to entertain people. Although it may be a great way to entertain and inform people, it is not the least bit true and gives serial killers a worse image by labeling them as monsters.
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...
The media most often showcases psychopaths as individuals who are inherently evil and dangerous towards themselves and others. Yet, this concept of psychopathy goes far beyond this idea of pure evil and instead necessitates a needed psychological understanding. These individuals, psychopaths, are generally characterized by a lack of empathy and conscience. Indeed, psychopath’s indifference to the repercussions of their actions combined with other characteristics such as hostility and aggression make for a potentially dangerous personality (Lyken, 1996, p.30). In order to identify a psychopath’s recidivism, it is important to differentiate them from sociopaths who, instead of having a psychological impairment that makes it difficult for them to socialize, have been systematically under socialized (Lyken, 1996, p.30). In accordance. psychologists have developed the methods such as the Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R) to help identify those with psychopathic tendencies (Walters, 2012, p.409). That is why predictions of recidivism among psychopaths is most efficient when done
... 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.
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 ...
Between all of the criminal shows on television these days, it is hard to get an accurate idea of what it truly means to be a police officer or a detective. Sure, it is simple to listen to all of their analysis and listen to the way they find the bad guys, but is that truly how it works? Criminal Minds is one of the most popular shows on television today because of the way it portrays the FBI in their endless search of new bad guys and the way it shows the criminals’ plot and true evil. Law and Order carefully portrays the entire process behind putting the criminals away. 24 goes through the entire day in one, twenty-four, episode season just to show the viewer every moment of a story. Shows like Psych make fun of the police officers and the
If we asked most people about insanity the image of a person in a straight jacket, bouncing off padded walls would jump to mind. They might not admit it for fear of being politically incorrect, but the image is a general association with insanity. Yet, most people who suffer from insanity live every day to the fullest—in society. We lock away only those who we “believe” are clinically insane, and we lock sentence most of them without a chance at trial.
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.
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...