In other words, the case is discharged but Klopfer could still be prosecuted later on. The prosecutor
Though the prosecution also closes the deal by agreeing to a plea deal which results in not be able to charge the criminal with several
Although current law does not distinctly define TBIs according to mens rea or diminished capacity, a possible defense that may appropriately be applied to criminal cases is the law as it relates to mitigating circumstances in sentencing. The Florida case of Cooper v. State (1999) is just one of very few cases in the country that seemingly acknowledges the fact that recurrent or traumatic head injuries may be a mitigating factor to criminal behavior. The defendant, Albert Cooper, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, armed robbery with a firearm, and armed burglary with a firearm after him and his partner, Tivan Johnson, killed the owner of a local pawnshop, Charles Barker, after robbing the location on May 25, 1991. The court ultimately found Mr. Cooper guilty as charged, which made him eligible to receive
Part 1 Explain the process of competency restoration. According to Hubbard, Zapf, & Ronan, (2003), “Competency restoration is the process used when an individual charged with a crime is found by a court to be incompetent to stand trial, typically due to an active mental illness or an intellectual disability.” Before the legal process can continue, a suspect should be restored to competency. That gives the suspect the chance to consult with his or her defense lawyer to have a factual and rational understanding of the legal proceedings.
If the offender is found guilty for the charge they will receive the harsher sentence, it is all about being honest within the federal courts, on determining the offenders
For example, if the criminal, due to finding evidence, does the crime with malicious intentions he will get more years in prison. When someone commits a mitigating crime, it means he or she did something minor that can’t be punished by the death penalty. The court will decide what sanction will be given to the offender.
In the trial of Mr. Smith, there is no question of whether or not he committed the gruesome murder of Mr. Johnson; the question is in the sanity of Mr. Smith at the time the murder was committed. You may be thinking, “Why on Earth would you think Mr. Smith was sane? He killed a man because his eye was creepy!” While Mr. Smith did kill someone for what seems like an absurd reason, this does not make him insane. The legal definition of insanity is “a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot manage his/her own affairs, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior....
This can lead to a desire for vengeance rather than justice. (Rosenbaum, Page 266) A real life example was when the father of an abused child, chose to shoot and kill the perpetrator as he was being returned for justice. (Rosenbaum, Page 267) Victims may be unhappy with the punishment prescribed by law and reducing that punishment to a lesser charge can be infuriating. Victims may have no knowledge of the law, the strength of the case, and may allow rage and vindictiveness/revenge override common
In refers to class discussion, as a result of the M’Nagthen case, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA) is only use when the defendant does not understand the nature of the crime committed. Therefore, although neurosis or personality disorders qualify as a mental disease according to the DSM-5; the law has eliminated these types of disorders from being utilized in courts as a form of defense. The law has also excluded the irresistible impulse or inabilities to comply with the rules as a means of defense in the federal
Diminished culpability refers that the juvenile offenders have less understanding of their wrongdoings and, therefore, should not be punish for their actions. I disagree with how supreme court are using this line of thinking because juvenile offenders know what they are doing, but sometimes does not carry the remorse like regular children. Sometimes, a violent juvenile offenders are not influence by the enviroment, but just carry it in their genes.
Mental health courts handle people with mental illness who have been charged of a crime. Mental health court is defined as “a specialized court docket for certain defendants with mental illnesses” where the individual’s mental health is first evaluated (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008, p.4). Then, judicial staff and mental health professionals decide a treatment plan for the person (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008). Mental health court is an acceptable system because it allows people with mental illnesses to be treated differently than in a traditional court system.
Mental Health has been a hot topic for many years. There have been many programs and laws put into place so that the mentally ill can get the care and treatment they need to live independently and maintain freedom in their communities. Although deinstitutionalization has occurred, the mentally ill are still being ‘institutionalized’ in our local jails, state and federal prisons. Why is this still happening if treatment and community based mental health care programs for those who suffer from mental illness are in place? Will history repeat itself; or are prisons and jails the new homes for those with mental illness in the United States?
BOOM! To the front of the head. In a blink of an eye, she was gone. Betty Williams was a young Christian girl, but she also liked getting people’s attention by doing crazy things. Betty was well known for being in different plays.
I agree with the author’s counter argument to the criticism of the defense being discriminatory towards those who are poor. The comparison is moot. The line between a poor person under extreme duress and a mentally ill person can be blurred at times. However, if a poor person commits a crime and are deemed mentally ill then, they should be excused. That is what society has deemed acceptable.
Through the use of the theory of deconstruction, Findley exemplifies the ambiguity of the novel; focusing on, the equivocal nature of sanity and insanity through Robert’s and Rodwell’s experiences with animals and violence; the blurred lines between friendship and enmity examined through the encounter with the German soldier and Robert’s rape; and finally, the indefinite concepts of family and stranger are demonstrated via Mrs Ross’s relationship with Robert and his connection with Harris. Firstly, the exploration of the ambiguity between sanity and insanity is found within Robert’s attempt to save the horse in which he ends up killing Captain Leather. In Robert’s eyes, what Captain Leather did was mad but his own actions are not seen as sane
