Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against insanity plea
Cons on the insanity plea
The insanity plea argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against insanity plea
Cons on the insanity plea
The insanity plea argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When it comes to the case Miller V. State, I believe that trial court refused to give the jury instructions regarding the insanity defense, which the defendant wished to have comunicated, because they wanted the jury to be able to decide imoartially. Miller was examined by three medical experts and they concluded that Miller satisfied the M'naughten insanity test when he stabbed Goring. The district court had instructed the jury to determine whether Miller was actually legally insane when he stabbed Goring. They wanted the jury to find proof of insanity at that time, and to also consider Miller's mental condition "before and after the killing to throw light on what Miller's mental condition was at the time of the killing" (Schmalleger
At the 2002 trial, Yates pleaded not guilty, by using the insanity defense. The insanity defense argues that an individual should not be found guilty of a crime if they have a persistent psychiatric disease at the time the crime was committed. It was proved that Yates could tell right from wrong, so she did not meet the definition of the insanity in Texas (Walsh). The jury deliberated for almost four hours, and finally found Yates guilty. The jury rejected her insanity defense, and Yates was sentenced to life in prison.
Dr. Mark Nolan, Senior Lecturer at ANU College of Law, says that the NGRI plea “enables defendants to avoid criminal liability and standard criminal punishment” (Nolan 8). The main disagreement with America is the focus whether if the “guilty defendant” pursues to misuse the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” as an alternative to imprisonment or if the criminally accused was at the time of committing the crime “clinically insane” and in need psychotherapy. Therefore, during this discussion of opposing viewpoints concerning the insanity defense being misused or ethical are going to be
A case can be changed due to the call of the insanity plea. Nevertheless, This may cause a possible difference to the charge of the defence. In a court case dealing with murder such as the issue with the Clutter family, the Insanity plea was brought into thought to test if Perry and Dick were mentally stable during that time. By definition, the insanity plea is an argument stating the defense was not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the act, consequently, making him/her unaware of the occurring actions moreover the later consequences. In the book, In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, the main characters Perry and Dick killed the Clutter family committing the crime of the century.
Then, the defendant has to formally plead guilty, not guilty, or insane at an arraignment. At this point, there may be a plea agreement, which avoids having to take the case to
In the field of criminal law there is a certain type of criminal defense that comes to the court and has a low success rate. These cases concern the mental capacity of the defendant and if they have enough mental capacity, or are sane enough, to be aware of their crime and consequences of crime. The insanity defense is extremely rare because of how difficult it is for the defense to prove to the court and jury that the defendant did not have the mental capacity to understand what they did wrong and the consequences from it. The case of Myers III v. State of Indiana is one example of criminal responsibility and mental capacity. This case has information that can be connected to the textbook with the insanity defense tests, mental competence
The insanity plea was created as a compassionate way to help the individuals who would benefit more from a mental institute rather than a prison. White’s position firm and filled with conviction, however it lacks substance and makes the reader question his research. In four states alone there are no verdicts where an individual can plead not guilty by insanity. He directs his argument with the examples of individuals such as David R. Berkowitz, Jim Jones, and Adolph Eichman. David R. Berkowitz was an individual who attempted the insanity plea but was denied that plea and was found guilty and sentenced to six life sentences in prison on
Justice Tindall, whom was present at the M’Naughten trial when the insanity plea became a legal defense, breaks these rules into 3 statements. “Every person is presumed sane unless the contrary can be proven otherwise” (Allnut, et al. 293), which in this case it cannot. “A person suffering a ‘partial delusion’ should be dealt with as if the circumstances of the delusion was real” (Allnut, et al. 293). If Minnie was suffering from some sort of delusions, she would have used that as an excuse once Mr. Hale found her or would’ve had some crazy story on what happened. She got straight to the point.
The court dismisses the plea quickly because “the justice system ignores psychosocial complexities and histories in favor of black and white definitions of right and wrong” (Myers). The justice system in this time very rarely accepted pleas of insanity or mental illness. Capote wrote that “after an hour’s conversation with the defendants, the doctor rule[d] out that neither man
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) is a form of insanity defense that allows for an individual to not be found guilty of a crime due to a mental defect or disease that results in a lack of mens rea, or the capability to intentionally commit a crime. However, simply having a mental illness or defect does not guarantee that an offender will be found NGRI. Not only would a defendant have to have a major or severe mental illness or disease, but the defendant would have to prove that their condition impaired them so greatly as to not have any control over their behavior or any concept that they had done anything wrong at the time of the offense. Although Bob undoubtedly had a diminished capacity for logic and reason in this case, the example as given does not provide enough detail to determine the nature of Bob’s personality or his potential motives in committing this crime. Nevertheless, there is one major flaw to Bob’s insanity defense: he tried to hide the crime.
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
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.
Intro: “It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane” (PHILIP K. DICK, Valis). In present day America laws have been placed that prevent people who are “insane” to be guilty of the crimes they commit. In short, insanity is the state of being seriously mentally ill relating to madness. This is presented in the book Medea written by Euripides through her point of view. In Medea, a surge of insanity purges her after she is betrayed by her husband Jason causing many cruel and harsh actions to follow from her.
Often times when a person is found not guilty of insanity they are taken to a mental institution. They soon get treated and then every so often they get a release hearing. Both authors brought up the fact that at the hearings, the roles reverse and the defense has to prove sanity and the government has to prove insanity, which only adds fuel to the confusion and contradictions. The authors agree that the
It actually involves psychiatric treatment, and even being held in a psychiatric institution, which can be even more traumatic than prison (2016 Insanity Defense). In fact, according to CNN, insanity defense is only used in 1% of the cases, and it is only successful in a fraction of those cases. The legal backing, and the reason I am against the abolition of insanity defense is because the person who commits the act is not aware of the nature and the quality of the act and does not know that what is being done is wrong. People should not be convicted if they do not understand the concept of