Insanity And The Insanity Defense

According to Psychology Today (2012), the insanity defense is defined as an individual who is being charged of a crime that can recognize that he or she committed the crime, but argues that they are not responsible for it because of their mental breakdown during the crime, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity.” While this defense is considered to be a legal strategy, it can also be seen as an indication of what society may believe; “it reflects society 's belief that the law should not

The first criminal defense is pleading insanity which is an affirmative defense. Insanity is a “legal term rather than a medical one, and indicates a condition that renders the affected person incapable of rational thought, thereby removing criminal culpability” (Pollock, 2013). This means that a defendant is not responsible for their actions due to having mental health issues. If a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, but is found to be legally insane; they will still serve their sentence but with a lesser severe punishment. Once a defendant pleads insanity, they are often required to have a mental examination. When a defendant is in a court of law, they may claim that they were as mentally impaired with illness as to be “insane” at the time that they were committing the illegal act (Pollock, 2013). However, when pleading insanity it can also create issues by being used in a criminal proceeding.

The first article I found was found in the Washington Post and it explains that the insanity defense typically refers to a defendant’s plea of not guilty because of the lack of mental cognizance to realize the wrongness of their doing and why it was wrong. Some states allow defendants to argue that they knew what did was criminal, but they were not able to control it, this is sometimes called the “irresistible impulse”

“Couch suffers from “affluenza,” according to his lawyer. Which means that his wealthy parents pretty much let him get away with everything,” explains the Time article (Grey). In 2013 Keller, Texas a sixteen year old teen Ethan Couch, was driving drunk, passed the speed limit and crashed, causing four innocent deaths. Judge Jean Boyd, was going to give him 20 years in states custody but Couch’s attorney told Judge Jean Boyd, Couch did not know the difference from right or wrong and was able to convince Judge Boyd to only give him 10 years in rehab; in which the parents were willing to pay 450,000 a year for treatment. The rehab center was like a spa or a 10 years vacation. Many people are angry because they are abusing insanity defense and

The American Law Institute created an Insanity test that excuses the defendant who because of a mental disease or defect lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Regardless of the insanity test, all jurisdictions have different ways of finding out if the defendant is competent or insane. When the defendant is using drugs or alcohol they do know they’re responsible for their actions. If they have a mental disease or defect and they’re cognitively and/or volitionally impaired, they can be eliminated by being responsible for committing a

In this study, the author investigates the controversial debate of whether the insanity plea is a legitimate defense or just an easy ploy people use as an excuse to commit crimes. The author’s discussion rest on four major tests used in determining legal insanity: 1) The M'Naghten Rule 2) The "Irresistible Impulse 3) The Durham Rule and 4) The Model Penal Code. The author also uses court cases that expose the pros and cons of each insanity rule. What the author finds is that, to be held criminally responsible, two essential elements have to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, (a) the person committed the act (actus reus) (b) in doing so, the person acted with his or her own free will, intentionally and for rational reasons (mens rea). According

Using insanity defense as an available option for criminals to get lesser punishment is a very controversial topic. There are many flaws within this law that should be taken into consideration when deciding if insanity defense should be abolished. Taking into account the strengths and weakness of this topic, it is clear that the insanity defense should most definitely be abolished.

The insanity defense was created to help protect people from the law, specifically those who due to serious mental illness could not be held accountable for their actions, regardless of how horrific they were. (Insanity, Religion, Terrorism 238) There should be no prejudice based on the mental deficiencies, incompetency, and mental illness of a person. Rather, the law should be malleable to be inclusive of everyone. The Constitution of United States represents the national framework of the government. The abolition of the insanity defense violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the Due Process Clause. Due Process Clause explicitly states no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”, due process meaning fair procedures. Within the Constitution also lies the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. To put a mentally ill or incompetent person on stand is a cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore although the public does not have a full comprehension of how the insanity defense works, in order to abide by the United States Constitution insanity defense MUST be available in a criminal matter.

Cryer et al. (2014) argue that insanity defense shouldn't be confused with defendant's incompetency. This is because individuals who are incompetent in a court of law are not able to stand their trial. For this reason, any incompetent defendant is held in a mental institution up to the period they are considered to participate or make informed decisions in the court of law's proceedings. Additionally, insanity defense that is perceived to be incompetence is separated from issues such as mental retardation. For example, a ruling that was carried out by the United States Supreme Court in 2002, Atkins v. Virginia argue that the effect of the defendants who are mentally retarded comprise of unusual and cruel punishment. This is not prohibited

The insanity defense is a very complex criminal defense plea. Over hundreds of years, the insanity defense has evolved. The correct term for the insanity defense in a criminal case will be “not guilty by reasons of insanity” (NGRI). Many people have used the insanity defense without success. When someone uses the NGRI defense it is argued that a mental illness took full effect leading to an individual to commit a criminal act. Many have tried to use such a defense, yet one after another they have failed. The insanity defense is one of the hardest, if not the hardest defense to use. Pleading insanity can be tricky. One cannot simply plead insanity and expect for it to work.

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.

The medical definition of insanity differs completely from the legal aspect. The medical definition of insanity is, as The Free Dictionary defines “a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder.” There is no mention of criminal activity or lack of responsibility

The purpose of the insanity defense is to protect the defendants that are found to be mentally ill. Although insanity may be difficult to prove, it gives the opportunity for others to prove that they are not mentally competent to understand the severe degree of their actions. An accused that is not mentally stable, is not able to stand trial like every other criminal. They have to find a different approach during their trial. They cannot think rationally, and they are not in contact with reality so therefore, they have the chance to use the plea. The defense is idea to those who actually have a mental disorder or have a history of dealing with a mental disorder.

The problem with this defense is that insanity here is either examined from a legal angle or a psychoanalytical one which involves talking to people and having them take tests. There is however, no scientific proof confirming the causal relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior based on a deeper neurological working of the brain sciences. The psychiatrist finds himself/herself in a double bind where with no clear medical definition of mental illness, he/she must answer questions of legal insanity- beliefs of human rationality, and free will instead of basing it on more concrete scientific facts. Let me use a case study to elaborate my argument that law in this country continues to regard insanity as a moral and legal matter rather than ones based on scientific analysis.

"Insanity is defined as a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or conforming to social standards." (Insanity, pg. 1) It is used in court to state that the defendant was not aware of what he/she was doing at the time of the crime, due to mental illnesses. But insanity is a legal, not a medical, definition. There is a difference between mental illness and going insane. Many problems are raised by the existence of the insanity defense. For example, determining the patient's true mental illness (whether they are faking or not), placement of the mentally ill after trial, the credibility of the psychological experts, the percentage of cases that are actually successful,