Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the insanity defense
Should the insanity defense be allowed as a legal defense for criminals
A short essay on the insanity plea
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on the insanity defense
Insanity, by its dictionary definition, is the derangement of the mind. (Dictionary.com) It is used in everyday context, when people say “You are insane for not doing your homework” or “ That traffic getting out of the game was insane last night!”. However the real definition, written by Columbia University Press states that “The term insanity is used chiefly in criminal law, to denote mental aberrations of defects that may relieve a person from the legal consequences of his or her acts” (Columbia University, Press). This issue is very important because many people try to get out of their true consequences of their actions, and by using this plea, sometimes they get away with it. The Insanity Plea has been used again and again in the US courts, but it should be disproved because of the true legal definition, because many people try to fake insanity, and because of how the social concept of insanity is different than the actual mental illness.
There have been numerous times that the US court has publicly stated their opinion on the insanity plea. On the US Court of appeals website, it states that “The court reviewed the case and issued a ruling, which stated that a plea of insanity would prevail only if the defendant’s unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or a mental defect” (US court of appeals, page 1). The US court systems have stated many times that just because the defendant has had a history of mental illness does not mean that they are automatically acquitted. The mental illness must have a specific correlation to the crime that was committed. An example of this is shown in the Carmela Dela Rosa murder case. Dela Rosa was “charged with murder in the death of 2-year-old Angelyn Ogdoc” (Vatz)...
... middle of paper ...
... back plan.
Works Cited
Blau, GL, H McGinley, and R Pasewark. “ Understanding the Use of the Insanity Defense. ”Journal of Clinical Psychology 49.3 (1993): 435-440. MEDLINE. 10 May. 2014.
Columbia, University Press. “Insanity” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th edition (2013): 1. History Reference Center. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
Hartocollis, Anemona. (Slaying Suspect Faking Insanity, Doctor Testifies.” New York Times 15 Feb 2006: Web.
“Insanity.” Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Web. 01 May. 2014
“Jury Rejects Insanity Defense in Westchester Case and Convicts Man of Three Slayings.” The New York Times 15 Dec. 1995: web.
US Court of Appeals. US District Court. Angela D. Caesar, clerk of court. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.
Vatz, Richard E. “The Insanity Plea and Retrograde Thinking.” USA Today Magazine 139.2970 (2011): 66. MASTER FILE Premier. Web. 10 Apr. 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
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.
The Public Conviction of Albert DeSalvo and the True Story of Eleven Shocking Murders makes a persuasive argument for DeSalvo being innocent of the strangling murders. She cites a number of reasons why she and others still believed that DeSalvo was innocent. One of the strongest of these reasons is that there was "not one shred of physical
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 ...
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.
Thorrey, Fuller E. The Insanity Offense. New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc, 2008. Print.
Cleckley, Hervey M. Introduction. The Mask of Sanity. New York: New American Library, 1982. N. pag. Web.
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.
2) Does Insanity "Cause" crime? : Thomas Szasz, M.D., The Myth of Mental Illness (1960)
" Mental Illness and the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. May 5, 2009. Web. 04
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.
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...