Forensic Examiner An Empirically Constructed Method Of Assessing Impairment

T.C.A. § 33-7-303 deals with the judicial hospitalization or outpatient treatment of a person judged not guilty by reason of insanity. An individual that is charged

There are so many assessment tools that can test the conclusion of a defendants capability to stand trial, of course a Dr. in the forensic setting will evaluate and test those individuals for accuracy. This is only done when the courts or an attorney (defense/prosecution) hires the forensic professional to conduct these tests. Certain assessments are viable to the submission of the courts in the U.S. A number of well-known lawful assessments of insanity to decide if the defendant was insane at the time of the offense are utilized (Gaskell, 2014). Insanity defense psychosomatic assessments apply the suitable examinations rendering to each jurisdiction. Those appropriate tests may vey but for the most part these are; The M’Naghten rule, Irresistible Impulse test, American Law Institute (ALI), Durham test, and Insanity Defense Reform Act (Gaskell,

Despite the perception that anyone could potentially fabricate a story and argue for a not criminally responsible verdict, the defence of NCRMD is a difficult one to prove. Very few individuals are found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. In the cases where a trier of fact or jury has successfully accepted the defence, counsel for the defendant alongside expert witnesses, have been able to not only prove a mental disorder at the time of the offence but also have demonstrated that the accused was rendered incapable of knowing that their actions were

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.

The insanity defense has been affirmed as “a defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the 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” (Insanity). In terms of economic and futuristic principles the plea is viewed with hesitation. The concern comes from the belief that criminals will act insane up to their trial date to convince the jury they are insane (Starr), and it’s cost because sending all those deemed mentally not guilty by reason of insanity to the proper institutions.

According to the textbook, “Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI)” verdict does not guarantee the effective treatment of the offenders while they are in prison.

Two other types of tests were created regarding insanity in 1984--the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act and Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. The Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act placed the burden of proof on the defendant, and not the prosecution (Morse, 2008). The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales were also developed in 1984 to evaluate criminal responsibility with regard to sanity. It uses the concepts of cognitive and volitional components and is structured to

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.

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

Mens rea is a very important aspect of the criminal justice system and it is really important when the issue of mental competency plays a factor in a criminal case. In the United States there are mental competency courts established in order to determine if the offender is found competent for trial. If they are not found competent then they are sent to a mental hospital in order to address their mental state. “Mens rea: In criminal law, the guilty mind. It refers to the intent that is needed in order to be found guilty of a crime” (Bartol, C. R., 10/2014).

In most cases, the Actus Reus, meaning a “guilty act” would be present, however may vary for the case for the Mens Rea element, meaning a “guilty mind”. Without either of these two elements, the defendant is not guilty, which can apply in the cases for Not Criminally Responsible offenders. When understanding the mind of an NCR offender, it is critical to grasp the Mens Rea within the crime because if a mental illness had prevented for the “guilty mind” to be present during the time of the crime, should it really be the mentally ill offender’s fault? Under Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an individual can only be considered as an NCR offender if either the mental disorder made it impossible for the offender to understand the morality of their actions and/or the offender could not understand the nature or quality of their actions (Legal Aid Ontario, n.d.). A judge can establish an NCR assessment whenever the defendant pleads guilty, however, this may vary from case to case (Legal Aid Ontario, n.d.). The NCR assessment is taken into account when proving the credibility of the mentally ill offender and whether or not their actions were intentionally towards a person when committing the crime (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2013). Therefore, to be considered a NCR offender itself is a difficult argument to prove in court. In addition, the offences that a mentally disordered civilian has been presumed to commit must be proven to the court with the Mens Rea element present. According to a study by the Mental Health Commission of Canada (2013), most NCRMD individuals who have been accused of one of the violent offenses such as homicide, attempted murder, and sexual offences, have been diagnosed in the psychosis spectrum, being 37.8%, while 68.9% (113 individuals studied) had psychosis issues. About 21% have personality disorders, 23.6% with

Criminal verdicts are always being watched by our community because citizens seek protection by law enforcement. Although the criminal justice system has established a foundation which is expected to promote public safety and punishment of criminals, they do not always live up to that capacity. One aspect of this is the insanity defense expectation. Verdicts are revealed after analyzations of criminals’ intent to commit crimes are determined. If it is proven that a person had no knowledge or sanity in committing a crime or breaking a law, that person will not be punished nor charged as a criminal. I strongly disagree with this method of decisions by our judicial system. No leeway should be available

The most common criteria for this defense are based on the M’Naghten ruling from 1843 (Bohm & Haley, 2012). There are also states that use the Irresistible Impulse Test (1844) and the Durham Rule (1954) (Moses, 2015). The M’Naghten ruling is also referred to as the “right-and-wrong test” and states that for a defendant to be considered legally insane they must have either, not known what they where doing or not realized that what they where doing was wrong. The Irresistible Impulse Test requires that it be proved the defendant was unable to stop themself due to a mental disease or defect (Moses, 2015). Under the Durham Rule a defendant is not guilty if the criminal act is a product of a mental disease or defect, meaning that if they where not affected by a cognitive impairment (Moses, 2015). In 1982 five states enacted laws that allow for guilty verdicts with an insanity addendum added to them, defendants that obtain these rulings are usually given psychiatric care until they are sane enough to be moved to the general prison population to serve out the rest of their sentence (Bohm & Haley,

Some schools all over North America do not allow the teaching of world religions because it causes arguments in classrooms, it is unnecessary and it should not be taught under government-funded education.

I do not believe that all individuals accused of a crime should be able to use an insanity defense because it would morally unjust. Some people who commit a crime do know what is happening and that is was wrong at the time of the cime. If the defense chooses to belive the criminal is insane then they should be given the substantial- capacity test to ensure that they did