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
Yet, why does one get away with it and another does not? Depending on the severity of their illness and the intensity of the crime, individuals with a mental illness who commit a crime should not be convicted, but they should be hospitalized if they are a threat to society. The question that most people ask when proposed this question is: who is considered mentally ill? To clarify, there are two prevailing legal tests to determine whether or not a defendant is legally insane. According to Terry Lenamon, expert Criminal Trial Attorney, the first, and most popular, is the “M’Naghten test.” Lenamon says, “Under M’Naghten, the determining factor is whether or not the defendant was (1) able to understand what he (or she) was doing at the time of the crime due to some “defect of reason or disease of the mind” or, (2) if he (or she) was aware of what they were doing, that he (or she) nevertheless failed to comprehend or understand that what they were doing was wrong” (Lenamon).
In this speech I am going to tell you about the types of insanity defense that are used in court cases, the process that goes into verifying a criminals sanity, and the issues that come about after a plea is entered. Now I’m going to explain what insanity is and the different types associate with it. The insanity defense plea as defined in law journals is a defense that’s asserted by the accused in a criminal prosecution as a way to avoid liability for a commission of a crime because at the time of the crime the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts. Cognitive insanity is the most common variation of an insanity defense that goes through the court system. This is where the defendant during the time of the crime suffered from a mental disease that impaired his/her psychological ability to see the wrongfulness of the act they committed.
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.
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
Both prosecutors and law enforcement, sometimes knowingly ignore this behavior, in hopes that their testimony will secure a conviction in their favor. Law enforcement who work closely with the crime lab in their department will often try to influence Pathologists to tailor their analysis and testing of evidence to suit their needs in assurance of a solid conviction. Consequently, Pathologists are criminally mishandling and presenting false testimony of the evidence and tests. Regardless of their underpinning of excuses, we must find some means of addressing these issues on a broader scope within the criminal justice system. Dr. Ralph Erdmann is a prime example of one who would
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
Criminal Defense Case Analysis Lina Webb CJA 354-Criminal Law Instructor: Stephanie Smith December 20, 2013 Criminal Defense Case Analysis The insanity defense is a very controversial one. Throughout history there have been many shows, books, and movies displaying insanity to avoid being convicted of murder. The insanity defense is used in-frequently and is not a popular one and usually only used in cases that are very serious. Society seems to be becoming more open to the idea of defenses that were once thought of with a less serious tone. Justification and excuse both play an interesting role in the criminal justice field.
At least in part, many can agree with the lack of a conscious or soul. However, when the concept of responsibility comes into play, I’m not convinced that society is ready to be as understanding. To ask the question regarding whether or not it is morally and ethically appropriate to hold an offender responsible for their crime and punish them if they are neurobiologically impaired or to find different means of responding to their crime will most likely provoke anger and contempt from the victims of these crimes as well as society as a whole. And, I would say rightly so. Our criminal justice system is based on being held responsible for your actions.
Following that Andrea Yates submitted a plea of guilty for reason of insanity. The criminal case a criminal defendant can claim insanity by simply saying that he or she should not be held criminally liable for the damages committed from his particular crime because he was insane at the time of occurrence. Acording to CBS News (2009) "Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist, testified for the defense that she did not know killing the children was wrong because she was trying to save them from hell.” Now because of the evidence used and the defense of insanity, the cases outcome did not meet very many people’s expectations, to include my own. Many felt that her being sentenced to a mental institute was an injustice at its finest. Acording to CBS News (2009) "No one should believe that she is getting off easy.