Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on insanity defense
Argument about mental illness and the criminal justice system
Conclusion of insanity as a defence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on insanity defense
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 successful, defense lawyers sometimes have strategy behind the weak insanity defense. The success in the insanity defense will not be to prove that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime, but to achieve other goals based on the defendant …show more content…
First, time delay tactic. In some cases if the insanity defense had not been raised, the trial would have been over with in short order, for it would only have involved the prosecution's establishing the facts of the crimes. Jurors would have focused on the heinousness of the crimes, and the terrible harm they caused the victims' friends and families. Once the insanity defense was raised, however, the jurors were forced to confront the reality of the defendant life. Defense attorneys were able to stress other factors regarding his personality, age and any other special circumstances. This tactic may end save the defendant from the death penalty. (Cassel- Strategy behind raising a weak insanity defense in the Malvo case). A second reason to raise insanity defense is the social or professional situation of the defendant. Some crimes might be horrible that have effect on the family members of the defendant for ages. I think the insanity defense even if it is weak, will make the public see the crime from different perspective and not look to the whole family as dangerous members on the society. Another reason might be tactic between the defendant, lawyers and business that will be affected because the defendant was a member of this company and represent the company for a long time. Insanity defense will relief the company or the business from having a dangerous criminal member especially if this strategy combined with highlighting the changing on the defendant’s life and circumstances affected his
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
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
Therefore, the M’Naghten test is the applicable legal standard to determine legal insanity (in this jurisdiction). The M’Naghten test asks the following three questions: Did the defendant suffer from a mental disorder at the time of the act? Did the defendant know the nature and quality of the act? Did the defendant know that the act was wrong? According to M’Naghten, insanity applies if the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know that the act was wrong, at the time of the act, due to a mental disorder. In regards to the first question, the defendant must suffer from a known psychological, mental disorder; this disorder must cause a defect in reasoning. If the defendant did not suffer from a mental disorder at the time of the act, then the defendant is not legally insane. Once it is known that there is a mental disorder, the second question to consider is whether or not the defendant knew the nature and quality of the act. The ‘nature’ of the act refers to the physical aspects of the offense, such as physically getting into the car and physically pressing onto the gas pedal to run someone over; the ‘quality’ refers to the potential harm (or outcome) that could occur from the offense, such as running someone over with a car would be to severely harm or even kill that person. The defendant must not know the nature and quality of
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
Micah Jester repeatedly told police officers to kill her in Austin. She was shot by police because she was holding a BB gun that looked like a handgun. Later, authorities determined she was mentally ill. Police officers aren’t trained on how to handle calls that involve mentally ill people. In order to fix it, police officers should undergo a 40 hour training to be able to understand when a person is in a crisis and when they should not be held accountable for their actions.
In order for the defence of criminal insanity to be considered, the severity of the crime but have been one that expressed the standard to be defined as indictable. This is due to the fact that a summary offence would not qualify for a trial before a jury and that absolving one of a summary offence such as driving under the influence of alcohol would be unsuitable for the asperity of the crime. As R v Porter was a murder case, therefore indictable, it would be suitable for the criminal insanity defence to be
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.
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. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
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 punishment for their crimes. For a criminal to be declared NGRI, they have to undergo extensive psychiatric evaluation to determine that, at the time of their crimes, they were not of sound mind and unable to realize the wrongfulness of their actions. If a jury decides that they are not guilty—which occurs in around 25% of cases where the insanity plea is accepted—they will receive mental care and rehabilitation but remain imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. The controversy arises from many facets of this issue. One is whether the legal system should allow this defense, as many states have banned it. Another question is whether insanity can be proven in a manner that is acceptable in a trial. Another question is whether juries are educated enough about the nature of insanity and how it is proven to make an informed decision. There is little agreement between the psychological and legal communities and the public on the correct policy regarding the insanity defense. This defense is a necessary part of the legal system in order to protect those who are unaware of their actions. One thing, however, is clear: if this defense is to continue to be a legal option, state lawmakers need to modify it. The evaluation of defendants, administr...
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.
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.