1. Competency to stand Trial: Refers to the ability or inability of a person to stand trial, and the inability could be due to an issue preventing them from being able to participate in their defense. If a person is considered incompetent, it could be for many reasons, for instance a mental or physical disorder as well as an intellectual disability.
Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O 'driscoll, C. (2007). The insanity defence: From wild beasts to
M 'Naghten. Australasian Psychiatry Australas Psychiatry, 292-298.
2. Insanity (legal sense): A person can be declared insane if they are conscious while committing the crime, committing the criminal act voluntarily, and had no intent to inflict harm. A person declared insane lacks rational intent due to a deficit or disorder, which inhibits their rational thinking
…show more content…
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 43-47.
Incompetency describes individuals who are currently unable to stand trial due to various factors. Incompetency can be a mental disorder, cognitive impairment, or intellectual disability. Defendants who are deemed incompetent are able to postpone their trial until their competency is restored. Two treatments used to restore competency are psychotropic medications and educational treatment programs.
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
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
A mentally insane person, according to psychologytoday.com, is defined as “a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality… or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive
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.
Competency is defined as whether an individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions. In 1960, Dusky v. United States was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. Since the Dusky case, it has been questioned if there should some flexibility in competency tests to stand trial. Meaning, if a defendant is facing very serious charges in case with complex facts, do they need to be more competent than someone with less serious charges?
What is sit to be insane? The legal definition of insanity at Law.com states, “Mental disorder… a person who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality…” In the tell-tale heart, a story written by Edgar Allen Poe, The Narrator (the main character) plots to kill The Old Man. His reason being: he believes the old mans “vulture” eye had cursed him. The Narrator is constantly defending his sanity but evidence can prove otherwise.
Insanity is defined as the derangement of the mind, insane foolishness or irrationality. When committed a crime the felony is either considered innocent by reason of insanity or guilty, but what classifies one from the other? In “Lamb to the Slaughter” by Roald Dahl it is debatable whether or not the main character Mary Maloney is innocent or guilty after the death of her husband Patrick Maloney. After fully analyzing the story, Mary Maloney is an innocent victim of insanity proving this through her oblivious states of mind.
...ng experts to identify mental health symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and identifying if any instances of malingering are present. Evaluating a defendant is essential in understanding whether or not they are capable of following legal proceedings. If an individual is in fact found incompetent, attempts to restore competency are performed through treatments with medication or mental training about legal information that is vital for them to know in their case. It is imperative to acknowledge competency to stand trial cases in the legal system to not only ensure fairness in the courtroom, but offer mentally ill defendants an opportunity to have a lawful trial depending on their psychological state.
How is that even possible? The dictionary definition of the word insanity is the state of being seriously, mentally ill (“Definition of the Word Insanity”). Insanity is also classified as a medical diagnosis. Insanity came from the Latin word insanitatem (“History of the Word Insanity”). People started using this word in the 1580’s. The Latins interpreted insanity as unhealthy Modern day society uses the word insanity too loosely. Although the dictionary definition of insanity is not wrong, several cases that prove having “insanity” does not always mean “being seriously mentally ill” has came to surface.
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.
...nse altogether. The insanity defense is used in only about 1% of cases in the U.S. and is successful less than 25% of the time. Today many people say they are insane to get out of their punishment of the crime they committed. But this rarely works. Many people abuse the insanity plea thinking that it will give them a sweeter sentencing. Many people in the public once defendant says they are insane after committing for example a murder the public gets very angry. The reason they do this is because in the public’s eyes murder is murder. The only time the public would probably sympathize with a defendant is when they are unable to stand trial because of their psychological issues. The public usually doesn’t agree with the insanity defense and it usually makes them outraged or feels like the right justice has been served to the defendant. (Collins, Hinkebein, & Schorgl)
Comorbidity, when someone has more than one condition, is very common when someone suffers from mental illness and substance abuse (Whitbourne & Halgin, 2013). Ralph Tortorici had a substance abuse problem and was diagnosed with extreme depression, fixed delusion accompanied by suspiciousness, delusional disorder, and with schizophrenic paranoid type. He was deemed incompetent to stand trial by a court appointed psychiatrist. He was later deemed competent to stand trial because his condition seemed to improve while he was in a psychiatric ward. To be competent in the state of New York, he must understand the charges against him, and help in his own defense (Frontline, 2014).
Gary B. Melton, John Petrila, Norman G. Poythress, Psychological Evaluations for the Court: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, Guilford Publications, 3rd edition 2007
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...