Palmer (2008) states that under the Durham rule, the jury is instructed by the trial court that in order to find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, the evidence must establish that the defendant was suffering from a diseased or defective mental condition at the time of the commission of the act charged; and that there was a causal relation between such disease or defective condition and the act. Feuerstein et. al (2005) states that the Durham rule is “considered a broadening of the insanity defense as it focuses on whether the action was the result or product of a mental disease or defect… [and] is therefore often referred to as the ‘product rule.’” As the M’Naghten rule, the Durham rule received a lot of criticism as well.
Story: Andrew Bedner is an American man at the center of bioethical controversy regarding the rights of parents to make medical decisions for children they have allegedly abused
The novel, Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson is an incredible read. In this book, Mr.
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.
Many people visit parks to see the animals. They will encounter numerous animals snakes, birds, insects, and occasionally a bear. Many people would run away to safety not try to talk or touch them. Timothy Treadwell is a person who on numerous occasions touched the bears and even played with the bear cubs. He was a bear enthusiast who wanted to protect them. He was filming a documentary where he displayed personality disorders, depression, and Attention Deficit Disorder. He has displayed that he has a disorder and is clinically insane.
Charles Manson and the Manson family committed gruesome crimes that shocked Los Angeles in 1969. The actress Sharon Tate and four others were ritualistically slaughtered in her Hollywoods Hills home. The murderers had left cryptic messages on the walls in the victims blood, and law enforcement were stumped by the multiple stab wounds found on the victims. The next day a married couple, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, who were successful shop owners, were found in their Las Feliz home murdered in the same way as Sharon Tate and her friends.
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
In other words, photography can be used to present objectivity, to facilitate treatment and for future re-admissions of the insane. With his presentation Diamond’s application of photography to the insane in asylums became widespread. Just a few years later in 1858 British psychiatrist John Conolly published, “The Physiognomy of Insanity,” in The Medical Times and Gazette. In this series of essays Conolly reproduces photos taken by Diamond and provides a detail of each photo selected. I have included four of the plates Conolly used in his essay below.
The media effects coupled with predisposers, precipitants and facilitators can have dire consequences on their own, but the last subject for mass murderer that demands attention is mental illness. In order to distinguish between the various kinds of mental illness and criminal culpability, this paper will analyze the criteria for ‘insanity’ developed by Cohen and Coffin. The victim is innocent and there is no reasonable way the perpetrator should consider them an enemy. The motive is unintelligible, delusional, unrealistic, and inappropriate for the nature of the murder. The method is ill-planned and often requires a situational weapon such as a blunt or sharp object. No attempt for secrecy, concealment, to avoid guilt, or to evade capture. And there should be queer behaviour illustrated before and after the fact such as depression, suicide attempts, etc. This point does not mean to convey that mass murderers and serial killers are insane by the same definition for they are usually calculating, patient, pursue the most prolific and in some cases sadistic methods, and realize their actions are wrong. However, it is important to recognize that they are clearly exploring sociological deviance and their mental instability is a contributing part. Teams of socio-scientists researching Jonesboro and Paducah cases found the shooters were: socially marginalized from bullying/teasing, had family problems, failed to attract attention from authority figures, had an availability of guns, and suffered from mental illnesses making them more vulnerable than other youths. Perhaps the media would not have such a far reaching and tight grip on people’s lives if it were not for the culture where children are reared. The weapons that are ...
quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not
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.
... 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 ...
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.
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. The Court of Appeal held that M’Naghten Rules do not apply because although the defendant failed to exercise powers of reason, she was not incapable of exercising reasoning and therefore, did not fall under the scope of insanity.... ... middle of paper ...