Anatomy Of Murder Vs Acquit Manion

Ms. Orndorff was examined by two mental health experts before trial and was found that she had a propensity of dissociating emotions and actions from conscious awareness. However, she did not suffer from any mental disorder supporting an insanity defence. Ms. Orndorff introduced a testimony in attempt to establish that she had amnesia after shooting, but she did not purse an insanity defence. Hence, the jury found her guilty of both charges. Even though she presented an evidence of the DID diagnosed after the conclusion of the guilt phase of the original trial, the trial court ruled that even if the jury found that Ms. Orndorff had DID, its presence would not permit the jury to acquit her, because no evidence established that her mental disorder

Without this notion of freewill, there would be no need for a court system because human behavior could be attributed to purely external forces. However, there exist some people in our society who cannot exercise free will due to a mental abnormality. Instead of inequitably holding these individuals fully accountable for their actions, the law allows for an affirmative defense, known as the “insanity defense”. In both CA and Federal law, a defendant is found “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” (NGRI) if at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality of wrongfulness of the acts or did not know what he or she was doing was wrong. Known as the McNaghten standard, the insanity defense in CA does not consider psychopathy an excusable mental illness. Instead of being considered a mitigating factor like other mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, psychopathy is viewed as an aggravating factor during sentencing. For instance, in the 9th Circuit Court case People v. Harris, psychopathy was ruled not in itself sufficient to constitute a limiting circumstance. Even outside of the US, courts have generally found psychopathy to be an inadequate excuse for serious crimes. In New Delhi, a High Court stated in the murder of a seventeen year old girl, “It is the dominant view among psychiatrists and the law that psychopathy

When it comes to judging cases in the legal system, things get tricky due to the imbalance between psychology and law. Psychology acknowledges that disorders have degrees; however, the law uses the method of sane or insane. Due to this, “not guilty by reason of insanity” is used and one the most famous cases we see this in is the case of Andrea Yates. In my essay, I will explain the basics related to her case and my personal opinion on this case.

There are several problems surrounding insanity defense: the most prominent one that psychologists and experts who testify face is judging the individuals psychological state retrospectively (Costano & Costanzo, 2013). The insanity pleas and defenses rely on the mental state of an individual at the moment they were committing the crime, not prior or after the crime. Therefore psychologists who evaluate these defendants are tasked with making judgements of an individual that was not available to them at the moment of crime and sometimes for long period after the crime.

The option to utilize the insanity defense in court should be supported because it is needed to acquit those individuals who had no control over their actions due to a physical ailment, to put a mentally ill patient in with the general prison population would be unconstitutional, and those who are mentally insane need special services for rehabilitation. The insanity defense should be available to those who had no control of their actions due to a physical illness. “D wounded a female neighbor friend whilst sleepwalking. They had been watching videos and she fell asleep on the sofa, he hit her with a bottle and a video recorder and grabbed her round the throat. He was sleepwalking at the time” (Harrison). This man

"Not Guilty, By reason of Insanity!" These words have stung the ears of many courtroom observers, especially the families and friends of victims whose lives were snuffed out by a so-called 'insane' assailant. While there are indeed many insane people running around the streets today, I feel that many persons who use the temporary insanity defense are more conniving than insane. Also, being an inexact science, the psychiatric community often offers up differing opinions as to any particular individual's sanity. Furthermore, money or lack thereof can play a major role in the success or failure of an insanity defense. The temporary insanity defense should therefore be abolished, especially for felony offenses such as murder.

There is an issue that would be severely detrimental to society as a whole if it’s not discussed.The Insanity plea is the type of plea in court that will let people get off scot free without charges due to them being in the incorrect state of mind at the time. Insanity Plea cases that end up successful generally mean that the criminal will get away with no charges. The subject of discussion has been defined by myself in the cases of multiple criminals. Some cases of the insanity plea have been proven to be quite literally insane.

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

Over the years the abuse of insanity plea, has troubled our American Justice System in our world today. The growth in this defense has increased so much that the expansion has asked the question; whether or not insanity plea is a worthy and justified defense to be used in the courts. The Insanity defense is when a criminal defendant can be found to have been legally insane when that defendant committed the crime they did at the time. In some cases, the criminal defendant pleads insane and gets a less severe punishment due to their ruling of having a mental impairment. In the court system, the trial procedure for pleading insane is straight forward with its steps and rulings whether or not the criminal is guilty or not.

Not guilty by reason of insanity is a defense strategy that has often been used by serial murderers in the past once an offender has been charged; however, contradictory to popular belief, this defense has been used in less than one percent of all criminal cases. According to Hickey, “The legal system uses the term insanity to define the state of mind of an offender at the time of the offense; offenders may be deemed insane at the moment of the crime and only for that period of time” (2014, p. 75). There have been four insanity defenses used in the United States to determine criminal responsibility, although only two are still in use to this day, and without much success.

According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a half of 1% of defendants in court cases plea mental insanity in a trial, and with this defense, only about 1/20,000 actually make the plea into a solution. Madness, mental instability, pure insanity; these names all define the nature of the mentally ill in a light of sadistic and melancholic misanthropy. In the mind of these few on our planet, they simply do not realize what has happened to them. Almost like a trance, or a trip of sorts, where nothing is comprehensible to anyone except the victim. Mental illness deemed as madness is a problem to only a few souls in the world, with many kinds focusing on violence, trauma, childhood memories, or simply lack of knowledge of what is the real

“A person was not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was a product of mental disease or defect. A jury was required to answer two questions: (1) did the defendant have a mental disease or defect? and (2) if so, was the disease or defect the reason for the unlawful act? Both of the answers had to be "yes" to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The test was a recognition of that mental illness was a disease that could be treated and possibly cured.” Retrieved on 5/25/2010 from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/EVOL.HTM

In our county, state and federal correctional institutions across the United States, inmates are being imprisoned for awaiting trial, during trial or convicted for some crime. According to the Bureau of Justice (BJS, 2006), Fifty-six percent of inmates in a state prison and forty-five percent of inmates in a federal prison, suffer from or had a past of mental illness. In our American society, individuals who suffer from mental illness seem to be publicly perceived as a nuisance. This can be due to the fact that the media over the years consecutively scrutinized individuals who use the insanity defense in criminal trials. The insanity plea is negatively publicized if the defendant is using it in a high profiled case which their actions resulted in severe harm or death to another individual. In addition, the public perceives the use of this plea as a scapegoat for the defendant to avoid serving punishment in a penal environment. Mentally ill individuals, who are being civilly committed or charged with all levels of crimes, are being heavily prosecuted and sentenced into correctional facilities rather than psychiatric hospitals. This leads me to discuss the lack of treatment for patients in Bridgewater State Hospital (BSH) located in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. This three hundred and fifty bed facility houses Massachusetts most criminally insane. This facility is also use to evaluate patients/inmates for competency to stand trial and for those who get civilly

Violence can be harmful and destructive to the psychological, physical or material state of others (Steadman & Cocozza, 1978). When the offender is a forensic psychiatric patient it is considered that the individual is unfit to stand trial or unable to understand the responsibility and reality of the crime (Douglas, Ogloff, & Hart, 2003). Judicial systems take into consideration to what extend the crime was commited by a person due to a mental dissability and resprctfull mental health institutions require reliable tools for mental health risk assessment and also management of offenders (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Doyle, Dolan & McGovern, 2002); Also needed, to assert equitable

Mental disorders affect many people throughout the United States. Although it is not a direct link to criminal behavior, it is a major risk factor and oftentimes criminal offenders are found to have them. Mental disorders cause their victims delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, and aggression. The definition of mental disorder is a vast number of mental conditions, ranging from the mild to the serious that impede one’s ability to function. Sometimes with the more serious disorders may absolve an individual of criminal responsibility (Bartol, A & Bartol, C, 2014). There are several different kinds of mental disorders including but not limited to schizophrenia, psychopathy, depressive disorders, and antisocial personality disorder (Bartol, A & Bartol, C, 2014). In this paper, each different kind of mental disorder will be discussed along with the discussing the fallacy of the public believing that many people get off with the not guilty by reason of insanity plea. It is hypothesized that individuals who display mental disorders are at a greater risk to commit criminal offenses. The literature reviews that follow describe each type of mental disorder and types of crime as a result of them. They will also describe the not guilty by reason of insanity plea.