Basically, defendants accused of a crime can acknowledge that they committed the crime but argue that they are not responsible for it because of their mental illness, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity." The insanity defense is part of a class
Since insanity is defined so arbitrarily, lawyers can protect their clients from their punishments with relative ease by dragging out the legal process for years at a time by using the insanity defense. To be protected with the insanity defense in many states, a criminal must take the M'Naghten test: failure to determine right from wrong deems the criminal insane (Cornell University Law School). Although some argue that people with mental illnesses cannot be held accountable for their actions, the greater concern should be for the overall safety for The United States of America because criminals who plead insanity can be a danger when released, legal definitions of insanity vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, Supreme Court has upheld four states' abolishing of insanity defense, and there is incomplete research on insanity. Shafer !2 Insane criminals who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are sent to mental hospitals to rehabilitate and treat their illness. The problem is that the criminals who are sent to a hospital and become "cured" could be a danger to society.
The movie “Death Wish” portrays a constant struggle between the due process and crime control models. The due process model of criminal justice expects a lawful fairness to all citizens. Also, this model attempts to protect a defendant’s rights more than the victim. It relies on authorities powers to be controlled by rules and procedures in order to prevent excessive use of their power. Also, it is important in this process to prove a person guilty by legally-found facts and evidence.
This code states that the person is capable for using this defense in the case of mental insanity if the do not have the ability to appreciate the fact that they have committed a crime and what that entails or that they are unable to conform to the moral and legal codes of society. (ALI Moral Penal Code (1962)) In regards to this case, I feel that the defendant did know what he was doing but do to the fact that he was either under the influence of the drugs at the time and dor he was mentally unstable and believed that he was saving her rather than killing her when he committed the crime. The reason that I feel that we can use this defense is the fact that the defendant ranted about aliens and the fact that he was god when the officers went to arrest him. He also kept a journal until he decided the time was right to perform the "saving" of the
It applies to persons who commit criminal acts but cannot be found criminally responsible because they were mentally impaired when the offense took place. Automatism could be the result of a range of conditions including hypnotism, sleepwalking, having a brain tumor or epilepsy. Non-insane automatism means a mental disease did not cause the automatism, rather it was caused by some other temporary factor. In this case, accused can be set free upon acquittal. Insane automatism falls under the defense of “mental disorder” and even if accused is acquitted, he or she may not be released into society.
There are criminals that need help but do not get help there for result in criminal activity. Then there are the criminals that are flat out insane. The correctional stage can be effective; it just depends on the sanity of the
The insanity defense allows a mentally ill person to avoid being imprisoned for a crime on the assumption that he or she was not capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Often, the sentence will substitute psychiatric treatment in place of jail time. The idea that some people with mental illness should not be held responsible for crimes they commit dates back to the Roman Empire, if not earlier. The "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) verdict rests in part on two assumptions: that some mentally ill people cannot be deterred by the threat of <A...< p> [The entire page is 1297 words long] Join eNotes The above is a free excerpt. Get total access to this content with the: eNotes Pass Join eNotes Over 3,500 study guides, question and answer forums, literature criticism, reference content, and much more!
After medical professionals deem a person mentally ill, the court room can then proceed to conclude an insanity defense. Both understand that claiming a mental illness can be sufficient enough to somewhat relieve the burden of guilt in a court of law. The diagnosis of mental illness does not automatically deem innocence and the person usually becomes institutionalized, therefore treated, but not punished for their uncontrollable actions. In a courtroom, the idea an insanity defense created a right-wrong test which was established with the M’Naghten Rule in the case Queen v. M'Naghten (1843). This test was applied when deciding if a person, at the time of the committing of the act, was ‘laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he knew
However, a negative effect on society is that you honestly cannot determine whether the probationer will abide by the rules that the courts set in place. The other negative effect they could have on society is the probationers may go out and commit more crimes. My hypothesis about the overall effectiveness of community corrections is that it is lacking in its attempts to keep probationers off drugs and alcohol. I also think that urinalysis tests are not fool proof, and can easily be manipulated and passed by the help of the detox drinks that there is
I have attended both dependency and delinquency courts and feel they are relevant to the reintegration of juveniles into out system. The theory and concept of “lock them up and through the keys away” cannot and should not apply to minors. They always deserve a second chance to fix their mistakes. Even though I think we should keep the juvenile justice system, I am not in favor of the way the “NO” argument on the Florida experiment is presented. I do not feel confident in its findings as the most valid or concrete reason for keeping the juvenile court system around.