An incident where pleading insanity worked in one’s favor is heard in the case of Lee Robin. Lee Robin was a 30-year-old doctor who was charged with murder of his wife and his two year old daughter. Robin admitted to killing his wife with an ax and drowning his infant daughter. After the murders, Robin called the police and reported that there was “a problem” at his home. Soon after, the police arrived.
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
The purpose of an insanity defense is usually to help those who have mental disabilities and do not understand what or why they are being charged with a crime. It will help them get a lesser sentence and in some cases even be acquitted of those crimes if you can show your client had a mental break, was under duress, past history of abuse, your home life, if you can prove that your client is unstable for any reason, you can use the insanity defense. It’s just whether the jury believes it or
According to Smith, the recognition of mental illnesses have forced the courts to question legal culpability (6). For example, the 1724 case Rex v. Arnold introduced the principle of “proof of insanity as an exemption from intent” (Smith 6). This led to the adoption of the “Durham Criterion,” in which the courts find that the defendant is not legally responsible if they are proven to have “substantial incapacity to conform to the law” (Smith 13). If we compare the legal history of mental illness to Szasz’s claims that mental illness is a myth, the legal treatment of psychopathy can be shown as another form of toleration. Szasz states that the myth of mental illness functions to create a “social intercourse [that] would be harmonious, satisfying, and the secure basis of a good life” (96).
However, by taking a look at the other side of the spectrum, it is clear to see that just because the insanity defense is used does not mean that all people believe it should be. One of the major arguments against the insanity defense is that defendants are only using the insanity plea in order to get out of their criminal charges by either faking or dramatizing a mental illness. It's also a common argument that there is no real way to measure someone's true sanity, and so it is very difficult to determine if someone is faking being insane. Morse states that this defense confuses “causation with excuse or moral and legal concepts with medical concepts.” This shows that many believe morals and ideals do not directly relate to medical ideals, so by using one to justify the other just isn't fair nor right to the legal system.
The legal definition of insanity is, “mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior,” and this can be proved to be allowed to the defendant's case. For this, the defendant should receive the insanity plea to receive help for his crippling illness.
This case, while Monte Durham wasn’t able to be proven insane, lead to reformations of the M’naghten Rule that would eventually be called the Durham Rule. Going back to Fersch’ book, this would implement more scientific approaches to determine if somebody was legally insane (3). Later in 1984, President Reagan would implement the Comprehensive Crime Control Act that required criminals to prove that they are mentally insane. With the history of the insanity defense concluded, let us take a look at some cases where the insanity defense is involved as the criminal’s reason for their
Today in the United States, the insanity defense is recognized as an affirmative defense, meaning that the defendant provides a reason or excuse behind why they have committed a crime. The criminal in question must supply supporting proof in a trial. If the defendant proves their case by proving evidence, the verdict usually is changed from "guilty" to "not guilty by reason of insanity". This change in verdict will usually also result in a less harsh punishment because they have been found convicted of a lesser offense.
Over the years, the Insanity Plea has gained much fame and controversy, and for good reason. The fact that person can simply plead that he or she wasn’t in the right mind, and get away with any crime, causes many to be outraged, and justly so. With the introduction of the insanity plea into the United States Justice System, many men and women have been able to escape proper punishment for their crimes, but also there have been necessary plea’s for those who are truly insane. The United States Justice System should keep the insanity plea, and while there will be those who try to abuse the system, the right to a fair trial for all is reason enough to keep such a law. The insanity plea has been around since 1724.
Mental illness has typically been a very taboo topic; just a piece of fiction in the minds of our ancestors. With this modern age of technological advancements comes mental health awareness in both our communities and in our courtrooms. Often times when the insanity claim is presented or brought up, what comes to mind is someone is crazy or they are just using the insanity claim for an easy out. This comes with its controversy and boils into the debate on if the insanity claim is justified or should even be used. The insanity claim is one of the only true laws that are present to defend those who just didn’t know any better but due to their own mental state.
The insanity defense proves defendants not guilty by arguing that at the time of the crime they lacked the mental capacity to realize that they were committing a crime. This defense is currently used in 46 states, some of which allow defendants to argue that they had no control over their actions even if they realized that what they were doing was unlawful (Mental Health America). The insanity defense was created to impose a moral check on the judicial system; many people argued that if children aren’t punished for crimes because they are too young to realize that their actions are wrong, then adults who aren’t mentally capable of making this distinction shouldn’t be punished either. This defense, however, is often abused, which defeats its
Most defendants found “not guilty by reason of insanity” are incarcerated in a mental institute. Usually their sentence is longer than if they can been convicted and sent to prison (Smith, 2012). Overall, the insanity defense is an interesting concept. While implemented to help those who needed it, over the years it has made many question its existence. Yet, it should be understood that it is not an easy plea to use or a slap on the wrist when the defendant is convicted.
Less than one percent of felony cases raise an insanity defense in hopes of nullifying the case. In that one percent, there is even less of a chance that the defense will be successful. (“Frontline”) An insanity defense may not have a high success rate, but when it does succeed, it can get an overwhelming amount of media coverage. One famous case in particular is the trial of Jeffery Dahmer.
Since many centuries, the liability of the insane for crime has always been one of the most controversial questions in the Criminal Law. In fact, it is very controversial because insanity itself is difficult to define, and the circumstances in which insanity can be used as exculpatory evidence are difficult to characterize. Insanity defense appeared before so many centuries, and according to California Law review, Crotty (1924) stated “The insane offender has been dealt with from the earliest times in English law. Probably the earliest authority is Theodoric, Archbishop of Canterbury (668-690 A.D.).”
People use this as an excuse to criminal liability because mental illness is covered under section 16 of the Criminal Code. The insanity defense prevents a mentally-incapacitated person from
