Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Insanity as a
Abstract essay on insanity
Definition of insanity essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Insanity as a
We the prosecution are here to prove you the jury that Mr. Smith is guilty of the murder of Mr. Jones. Some may say Mr. Smith is insane, but we believe he is completely sane. The legal definition of insanity states, “...a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot manage his/her own affairs, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior…” The word “or” in the definition shows that the defendant does not have to have all of the characteristic of insanity to be diagnosed with insanity. The are many pieces of evidence in this case to prove Mr. Smith is legally sane including, Mr. Smith was able to realize that there was a difference between fantasy and reality, he was able to control how he behaved towards Mr. Jones, and the defendant was able to plan what was going to happen.
To begin with, Mr. Smith was able to realize that there was such things as reality and fantasy. “Yes, I have been ill, very ill. But why do you say
…show more content…
that I have lost control of my mind, why do you say that I am mad? Can you not see that I have full control of my mind? Is it not clear that I am not mad?” The definition of insanity states that in order to be insane you cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, but he kept saying he wasn’t mad. By saying he wasn’t mad, Mr. Smith was able to realize that there was a difference between fantasy and reality. Furthermore, the defendant was able to control how he behaved while Mr.
Jones was around. “During all of that week I was as friendly to the old man as I could be, and warm, and loving...For seven nights I did this, seven long nights, every night at midnight. Always the eye was closed, so it was impossible for me to do the work. For it was not the old man I felt I had to kill; it was the eye, his Evil Eye...In the quiet night, in the dark silence of the bedroom my anger became fear — for the heart was beating so loudly that I was sure someone must hear. The time had come! I rushed into the room, crying, “Die! Die!” The old man gave a loud cry of fear as I fell upon him and held the bedcovers tightly over his head.” Mr. Smith could control his behavior very well. He was able to control his behavior towards the victim while he planned to kill him. For seven nights the defendant went into Mr. Jones’ bedroom and decided on his own not to kill him. The defendant chose not to kill him until the eighth night, the night that he was
awake. On top of that Mr. Smith was able to plan what was going to happen. “So I am mad, you say? You should have seen how careful I was to put the body where no one could find it. First I cut off the head, then the arms and the legs. I was careful not to let a single drop of blood fall on the floor. I pulled up three of the boards that formed the floor, and put the pieces of the body there. Then I put the boards down again, carefully, so carefully that no human eye could see that they had been moved.” The legal definition of insanity states, “...cannot manage his own affairs…” meaning that the defendant could not control what was going to happen, but Mr. Smith was able to plan everything from how he was going to hide his plan from Mr. Jones to how he was going to hide the body. Everything happened exactly how Mr. Smith had planned it to. Throughout this trial we have shown a lot of evidence to prove that Mr. Smith is not insane such as: Mr. Smith was able to realize that there was a difference between fantasy and reality, he was able to control how he behaved towards Mr. Jones, and the defendant was able to plan what was going to happen.. Mr. Jones was murdered by a completely sane person. With the evidence given, we the prosecution believe you the jury should find the defendant guilty of the murder, in the first degree, of Mr. Jones. We the prosecution rest our case.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
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
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
In paragraph 3 and 4 the narrator explains, “ And every night, about midnight, I turned the latch of his door and opened it. . . I did this seven long night-every night just at midnight. ” This shows that he was a calculated killer because of the time he took to watch the man before killing him. It shows how the narrator thought it through. Also shows how he was going to have to study the old man's sleeping behaviors in order to have to kill him.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
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
My studies show that the patient’s actions during my interview with him were unusual, he was oddly calm about explaining in detail what he had done to the old man. I asked the defendant why he would do such a thing as killing the old man. He tells me the old man never did him wrong, “I knew what the old man felt and pitied him” (Poe 204)., it was the eye that tortured my patient. “a pale blue eye...my blood ran cold...thus
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
The narrator thinks that if a murder is carefully planned, then the murderer is not insane. Also, the narrator claims he suffers from acuteness of the senses. Regarding the sound of the old man's beating heart, the narrator says, "And now have I not told you that what you mistake for madness is but over-acuteness of the senses? --now, I say, there came to my ears a low dull, quick sound, such as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton". The narrator claims he is not imagining the sound, but he is hearing it because his senses are so sharp.
And when the storyteller couldn't take anymore of the Evil Eye looking at him, he said, "I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye for ever. " This is the start of the storyteller’s madness, and as the reader listens to what he says, the madness within the storyteller becomes very apparent. For eight nights in a row, the storyteller went to the old man’s chamber and cast a shred of light upon the Evil Eye that he so hated. For seven nights, it was always shut, and the storyteller could do nothing because it was only the eye that he hated, not the old man. On the eighth, the storyteller accidentally makes some noise and wakes the old man up.
Not only was Perry Smith a male who massacred a family of total strangers, but he also had obvious signs of mental illness (Capote 366), a common characteristic of even the best serial killers (Forensic Science 563).... ... middle of paper ... ... Detroit: UXL, 2005.
...cause of the old man he is taking care of’s eye. One of the old man’s eyes was a pale blue with a film over it. Because of this, he decides to kill the old man to “be free of it”. When he brutally murders the old man, he dismembers his body and puts it under the floorboard. A neighbor heard screams and sent the police over to see what the problem was and the narrator claimed he screamed in his sleep and the old man was out of town. The police believed nothing was wrong, but the narrator’s guilt consumed him, and he told on himself, causing him to be arrested.
Julian Symons suggests that the murder of the old man is motiveless, and unconnected with passion or profit (212). But in a deeper sense, the murder does have a purpose: to ensure that the narrator does not have to endure the haunting of the Evil Eye any longer. To a madman, this is as good of a reason as any; in the mind of a madman, reason does not always win out over emotion.
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 fixation on the old man's vulture-like eye forces the narrator to concoct a plan to eliminate the old man. The narrator confesses the sole reason for killing the old man is his eye: "Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees - very gradually - I made up my mind to rid myself of the eye for ever" (34). The narrator begins his tale of betrayal by trying to convince the reader he is not insane, but the reader quickly surmises the narrator indeed is out of control. The fact that the old man's eye is the only motivation to murder proves the narrator is so mentally unstable that he must search for justification to kill. In his mind, he rationalizes murder with his own unreasonable fear of the eye.