Furthermore, I explained the hardships faced by indigent defendants who truly need a mental health professional to assist with their defense. Denying an indigent defendant of the tools and expert witnesses needed to support their insanity plea is a blatant disregard for the valuable concept of due process. References American Civil Liberties Union. (2015). Mental Illness and the Death Penalty.
Why do the criminals try to make it even worse? Hopefully some valid points can be brought to light about this subject matter. An insanity defense is a plea used by a defendant, to say that they are not guilty because they were lacking the mental capacity to understand that they
What steps must be taken to prove insanity? When the defense claims that their client was not in a state of understanding for what he or she did due to mental disorder is often known as the insanity defense. This is to show that the defendant was unaware at what he or she was doing and should not be held accountable for the alleged actions. In this particular case the term insanity is used more legally than medically, so it is the court’s decision on if there should be a medical professional involved or not. Stu Dents was charged with homicide, kidnapping, assault of a police officer, burglary, and crimes related to drugs.
During this it was considered that the compliant but incapacitated adults in care homes & hospitals might be deprived of their liberty in the meaning of the convention. This resulted in the amendment of the mental capacity act of 2005 to contain the deprivation of liberty safeguards. The purpose of the deprivation of liberty safeguards also known as DOLS was to protect the interests of extremely vulnerable groups of individuals and to ensure people are given care in the least restrictive way, prevent arbitrary decisions that deprive vulnerable people of their liberty and provide them with the rights to challenge against any unlawful detention. This applies to anyone over the age of eighteen, who as a mental disorder, who lack the capacity to consent to the arrangement made for their care and whom a deprivation of liberty may be necessary in their best interests to protect them from
Charles Laverne Singleton: Too Insane to Execute Jessica Bultema Chamberlain College of Nursing/DeVry PHL 447: Logic & Critical Thinking Prof. Truitt May 18, 2014 Charles Laverne Singleton: Too Insane to Execute The 8th Circuit Court of appeals ruled that they could forcefully administer antipsychotic medication to Charles Laverne Singleton in order to allow him to be sane enough to execute. After being imprisoned for his crimes, during his incarceration he became insane. In order to fulfill his death sentence, it was ordered that he could be placed on antipsychotic medication to treat his condition. The reasoning behind this seems logical, but there are opposing views that can also be understood. Now having been made aware of this event, the arguments included in the passage and their subsequent validity will be discussed.
If someone is mentally ill, their condition should not excuse them from their crime or offense. They should still receive the proper treatment for their condition while serving time for whatever crime they committed.If one is truly clinically insane then they should not go unpunished, but they should receive an appropriate punishment. An appropriate punishment should all depend on the nature of the crime and the nature of the illness. It would be very beneficial to everyone to put their attention towards the treatment instead of the punishment. It would not be safe to place a grossly insane person in prison for basically the rest of his/her life.
Kylie Carroll~10/11 ------------------------------------------------- Per. 5 Exploratory Insanity Plea Yes, I do think there should be an insanity plea. If someone was guilty of a crime, but claimed they were insane when the crime was committed. That person should have to spend the same amount of time they would be originally sentenced, but they would have to spend that time in a mental institute. However, if someone is so mentally ill that they do not know right from wrong, they should not be able to freely roam the streets.
iFORENSIC PSYCHIATRY When killing isn’t murder: psychiatric and psychological defences to murder when the insanity defence is not applicable Anthony Samuels, Colman O’Driscoll and Stephen Allnutt ´ Objective: This paper describes psychiatric and psychological defences to murder where the defence of insanity is not applicable. The charges of murder and manslaughter are outlined. Self-defence, sane and insane automatism, provocation, diminished responsibility, duress, necessity and novel defences are discussed. Conclusions: The complexities of psychological and psychiatric expert evidence are highlighted as well as the fact that legal decisions are not always consistent with medical or scientific theory. It is concluded that this is a controversial and evolving area of mental health law and mental health professionals have an educative role and a responsibility to provide testimony that is supported by the best possible evidence.
Their condition might take an unexpected turn; or they might change their mind about a treatment; or a treatment might have disappointing effects. In these and similar cases, withdrawal of a treatment after trying it will be acceptable legally and ethically. If the team believes that a treatment could do some good, it would be unacceptable not to commence it on the basis of a false fear that it would not be possible to stop the treatment. Special legal procedures are associated with decisions relating to patients in a persistent vegetative state (BMA 2007). Intention Charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter require an intention to kill or harm on the part of the accused.
However, there are some types of behaviours such as Strict Liability offences which do not require fault but the defendant is still prosecuted. Fault is established by a combination of Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Defences and Sentencing. The outcome of being charged with a criminal offence is based on whether the defendant is found to be at fault (guilty) as a result he is convicted and sentenced; or he is not at fault (not guilty) and is acquitted; or he is partially at fault which is where the charge is reduced to a lesser offence for example a murder charge is reduced to a manslaughter charge. Firstly, to be at fault, the defendant must have the Actus Reus of the offence he is being charged with. Generally, the Actus Reus must be voluntary and deliberate and if involuntary, he is not at fault.