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).
James Wetzel CRMJ 101-52 Online Jury Nullification-Article 1 Jury Nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict against the proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law to be unjust or unjustly applied. As a result, the defendant is declared innocent, or is given a lesser penalty, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. While this all seems great, jury nullification is a source of much debate in today’s society. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard or last resort again the wrongful punishment and imprisonment. While others often view it as a violation of the right of a jury and undermining that law.
Some of these (obvious) elements are improperly and mishandling of the Nine Reid Steps of Interrogation or failing to recognized specific factors or signs such as the mentally ill, children / young adults, or persons with low I.Q. These facts will inevitably suppress a confession. As with all fallacies, in order to understand the suspect and situational factors involved in false confessions, more research needs to continue. It is a popular now known fact that studies of false confessions reveal most people who make false confessions are the young, developmentally disabled or mentally ill. However, if a true suspect is foolish enough to fall for police deception, they do so at their own peril (Rhode Island v. Innes, 1980; State v. Jackson, 1983).
For instance, because a "psychopath" may display a general coldness toward others, they are more likely to commit criminal acts, and afterward not respond to punishment or deterrent tactics. Hare’s psychopathy checklist when used as a tool to identify psychopaths prevents harmful exposure of non-psychopaths to this dangerous group of offenders. In fact, key words have been repeated several times by numerous psychiatrists diagnosing Psychopaths at different times and in different places. The connection between these thinkers is not casual but determinative. Terms such as anti-social, inability to exercise self restraint,
Many people are under the impression that a criminal suit is the only way to sue someone for a person's death. However, that would be incorrect. A criminal lawsuit and a civil lawsuit are two entirely different matters as the world discovered during the O.J. Simpson wrongful death civil lawsuit. What Is A Wrongful Death Lawsuit?
When policy and claimsmakers label crimes as social problems, they do not always account for all representations of crime. They neglect to realize that crime is a reality that filters through a series of human decisions running the full scale of the criminal justice system (Silver 265). Jeffery Reiman states within “A Crime by Any Other Name” that, “although there is a wide range of behaviors that the law defines as criminal, people tend to view crime as involving only certain kinds of acts committed by particular populations of individuals”. For example, the rhetoric presented within the War on Terror in the United States lead to moral panic which exaggerated and distorted perceived deviant behavior (Silver 330). Similarly, the rhetoric presented
The death penalty at times has executed the innocent while also allowing those who have committed horrendous crimes to go free. The death penalty in reality does not deter criminals from committing crimes (Manning & Rhoden-Trader, 2000, pp. 22-5). A number of people have changed their minds regarding the usage of the death penalty, this was brought out when people witnessed the significant errors that can occur in its usage, the number of “those found innocent” is not only the case but some cases of “grisly mishaps” were found to occur as well (Manning & Rhoden-Trader, 2000, pp. 22-5).
Aside from the “smoking gun”, nothing carries as much weight with a jury than the testimony of an actual witness. However, how accurate is the actual account of the crime as said by that witness? The human memory is far from being perfect and, let’s face it, forgetfulness is a fact of life. One of the most obvious reasons for forgetfulness is the nature of the human memory itself. Even the most basic, everyday items often fail to be encoded into our memory.
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!
His methods were criticised as he seemed to be attempting to place the blame on everything and anything except the two men but his plea was successful and their death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. Darrow’s success in this case raises the question of whether criminals can be held morally responsible for their actions as he reasoned that ‘punishment as punishment is not admissible unless the offender has the free will to select his course’. I feel that this is a huge problem as if there is no free will then we cannot blame or praise people for their actions. If this is true then even the most evil killers could not be blamed with moral responsibility for their actions and this goes against the whole underpinning