Insanity Vs Insanity

Due to its primary role in processing memory and emotional reactions, over the last decade and a half psychologists have been linking the amygdala to psychopathy. It is involved in aversive conditioning and instrumental learning and is thus involved in all the processes that, when impaired, produce the same functional impairments displayed by psychopaths. Two famous studies conducted by Tiihonen and Kiehl respectively have confirmed this. Tiihonen used a volumetric MRI to test and confirm the positive correlation between low amygdaloid volume and a high degree of psychopathy in violent criminals (measured by the Hare checklist-revised) while Kiehl used a functional MRI to prove reduced amygdala response during an emotional memory task in individuals who scored high on the Hare checklist-revised. However, both these studies along with numerous others were conducted using violent offenders as subjects rather than individuals with psychopathy. Although many psychopaths do exhibit violent tendencies, not all violent offenders are necessarily psychopaths. A study conducted by Raine is one of the few that did focus only on individuals exhibiting psychopathy. In his study Raine was able to show reduced prefrontal grey matter in his test subjects. Unfortunately though, he was unable to differentiate between grey matter in different regions of the prefrontal cortex. It is however clear that there is one region of the frontal cortex that could be

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.

"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.

Forensic psychology has had a lot of debates on the insanity defense. This paper serves as a review to explain why the article I’m reviewing relates to the insanity defense. The article I’m reviewing is called Psychosis and Substance Use: Implications for Conditional Release Readiness Evaluations.

The ideological concept of an insanity defense, formerly termed “complete madness,” was originally incorporated into the English common-law jurisprudence system in the late thirteenth century of the United Kingdom as an affirmative defense for defendants under the yoke of criminal charges involving a heinous action which could involve the option of termination of a defendant’s life if adjudge guilty of such act (Hill). Through such incorporation of a legal defense, the institution of a new societal grouping known commonly as the “criminally insane” became expounded, as well as, the legal opportunity allowing for self-declaration of being “innocent by reason of mental illness or defect”(or, the insanity defense). Those criminally insane are a subset of the prison population who have been deemed to have committed their crimes under the influence of a mental disease/disorder, or who were not in a condition of intellect during the time of the crime to comprehend the illegality or immorality of their offense (Frontline). Only if the defendant has plead insanity before the court can they be considered a truly criminally insane inmate. There are manifold condemnations sustained by the judicial system ranging from guilty but insane to not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as the legal states of incompetency and diminished capacity. This distinction has become a substance of federal law, but as soon as a defendant is convicted, the treatment of the convicted individual is left

The concept of insanity as a defence was established in the early eighteenth century in the Arnold’s case (1724) and was further developed in the late 18th century in the Hadfield’s case (1800), but the standart test of criminal liability was only formed after the case of Daniel M’Naghten (1843). This case established the special verdict of ‚‘not guilty by reason of insanity‘.

It’s unnerving when someone with no criminal record commits a disturbingly violent crime but is it just as alarming if someone that has brain damage commits a crime? For most of us, myself included, we think criminals make a choice to break the law. In a challenging case piece, “The Brain on trial,” written by, Neuroscientist David Eagleman narrates several cases of mental illness criminals and the frightening events which took place August 1, 1966. Eagleman argues that human behavior cannot be separated from human biology and believes that criminals that suffer from a mental illness is the reason they commit an illegal act. Specifically, Eagleman argues that a “forward-thinking legal system” will respond to neuroscience’s increasing capacity to demonstrate the illusory nature of free will by developing “customized rehabilitation” for criminal behavior. Overall, Eagleman’s perspective and research, explains his thoughts and influences that cause individuals to perform certain acts, allow us to understand his proposal of a forward-thinking legal system and have rehabilitation for criminals with mental illnesses.

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.

The insanity defense has been quite a controversial subject. It has been used by some of the most baleful criminals in history. Its controversy derives from the belief that people who plead insanity are excused from the fault of their crimes. Surprisingly however, this defense is rarely used because of how hard it is to prove legal insanity. Less than one percent of criminals choose to plead insanity and of those who choose to plead insanity the success is quite low at 25 percent.( Rolf. p. 2) This defense has been around for centuries. It can be dated back to the 14th century. Kings were willing to pardon crimes to those who were deemed “mad”. By the 18th century the “ wild beast” test was developed by some English courts. However, the

In cases where a defendant has committed the crimes in question but is clearly mentally ill, a “guilty but mentally ill” verdict is used. The guilty but mentally ill verdict acknowledges when a defendant 's mental illness played a large role in a crime without causing it. A guilty but mentally ill defendant is sentenced in the same way as if the defendant were guilty, then the court decides whether the defendant requires treatment for their mental illness. One criticism of the guilty but mentally ill verdict is that, given the level of mental health resources in prisons and jails, it is not very likely a defendant will actually receive relevant treatment while incarcerated.

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.

Insanity is a permissible concept that consists of the courtroom purpose that a human is not qualified of creating mindful intent and cannot be held guilty for a criminal act. No human should be exempted of law-breaking or any other offense on the foundation of opinion decreed by psychiatric or mental health experts. Excusing a human of responsibility for a criminal act is an act of lawful humanity impersonating as an act of medical science. In addition, one who is merciful or merciless toward lawbreakers is a ethical complication, which is not related to the real expertise of medical

The purpose of this essay is to explain why the insanity plea, or the insanity defense as it is also known, is not a legitimate defense for any type of crime. The insanity defense has been around for a number of years but does it make a mockery of the legal system? While many people have used the insanity defense, it loses more times than it wins. This defense is used when someone believes they did not know right from wrong while committing the crime. The problem with this is that it is hard to know someone’s mental state when there is not much evidence to go on. Someone can become mentally ill after a crime or someone may have been mentally ill before a crime. Neither one of these issues always weigh on the actual crime. A large

In criminal cases where an insanity defense is used, the defense must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not responsible for his or her actions during a mental health breakdown. There are two forms of an insanity defense, cognitive and volitional. In order for an individual to meet the requirements for cognitive insanity it must be proven that the defendant had to be so impaired by a mental disease at the time of the act that they did not know the nature of what they were doing. If they are fully aware of their actions, one must prove that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. Volitional insanity, also known as irresistible impulse, states that the defendant is able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time, but suffered from a mental disease that made them unable to control themselves. Volitional insanity is common in crimes of vengeance, where very few states allow the use of this defense. The insanity defense should not be confused with incompetency. In incompetency cases, the individual is not able to understand the nature and consequences of the case, nor adequately able to help an attorney with his or her defense. The insanity defense reflects the approach that an individual who can’t acknowledge the consequences of their actions should not be punished for the crime. In most jurisdictions a professional is bought in to determine if the defendant was not able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time of the

What is sanity? Vaguely, sanity is simply the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner. Although this may be true, is there really a definition sanity that is not subjective? Luis Marques once said, " The dim veil between sanity and insanity is perception." Time and time again we let society determine what is logical and what is illogical, but whoever determines these things remain nameless and faceless. In my opinion, sanity is the real insanity that most people contribute to normality.