Pros And Cons Of Law

6861 Words28 Pages
The effect of the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict on the outcome of a jury trial Michael A. Eagan Texas State University Abstract This paper will discuss the history and evolution of the insanity defense. The definitions for each of the insanity tests will be reviewed as well their respective drawbacks. Then this paper will explore the implications of giving a jury the option of the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict, and its pros and cons. Then this paper will look at whether the option of Guilty but mentally Ill can affect the verdict of a jury trial. This paper will then end with the current state of the insanity defense and conclusions of this research. History of the Insanity Defense Pre-McNaughton Today, the insanity defense is an affirmative defense, this means the defendant must raise the argument that they are insane, and if they were found insane, it would negate the elements of a crime. The burden of proof is also on the defendant and the defendant must prove the defense of insanity by “clear and convincing evidence”[1] (Garner, 2001). The insanity defense has evolved over centuries. People have always believed that it is immoral to punish a person who is not responsible for their criminal behavior, because if a person does not know what they are doing at the time of a crime they should not have to be punished for it. The Roman Empire that found people non-compos mentis (Latin. without mastery of mind) where not held responsible for their criminal actions. The Roman concept of “mastery of mind” has evolved into the modern concept of mens rea or “guilty mind” which is the component of a crime that looks at a person's state of mind (Borum & Fulero, 1999; Costanzo, 2004). Before the McNaughton ruling the insanity defense went through three important phases. Before the McNaughton Rule, the insanity defense was applied through
Open Document