My Insanity Case Study

In the case of Georgia vs. Schmidt, this is an interesting juvenile case. Lacey Schmidt who was 15 at the time of the attack murdered his 14 year old girlfriend at the time in her Miles Road home. He was charged with theft, possession of a firearm and murder. Lacey is accused of shooting and murdering Alana Calahan by shooting her in the back of the head while inside her home in Harlem Georgia. Lacey was sentenced to life without parole. The crime happened in January of 2011 in the neighborhood of Harlem where Lacey and Alana were from. Lacey was then convicted of malice murder, felony murder while in commission of aggravated assault in February 2011 where he received life in prison without parole. Prosecutors say that Lacey had planned the

While appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the petitioner argued, “that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue and in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The petitioner argued that “because he introduced expert witnesses to demonstrate mental retardation and the State did not introduce its own expert witnesses in rebuttal, the trial court should have disregarded the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue or granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The Texas court found that the burden of proof to determine intellectual disability fell to the petitioner and that there was “no authority,

The case I am about to describe is the case of Christopher Abernathy. He was 48 years old when he left prison. He was only 18 years old when he was jailed. The reason he was sent to jail because of a murder of a 15 year old girl. Kristina Hickey had been walking home from her high school Choir practice in Park Forest, she disappeared on October 3, 1984. They did not find her body until two days later. After they have examined her body it was known that she had been stabbed numerous times and she had been sexually assaulted. Christopher had already been questioned by the police and he was let go. A year later they arrested him and he was charged with murder. Then an attorney with the innocence project and he found out that the police that

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

Id. at 180. To prove that the involuntary medication will significantly further those interests, the government must prove that the medication “is substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial”, “and that the administration of drugs is substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant’s ability to assist counsel in conducting a trial defense.” Id. at 181. In the case before us, the government has failed to prove that its interest in trying Mr. Whitman is not mitigated by special circumstances. The government has also failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the proposed treatment of Mr. Whitman is substantially likely to render him

During the trial, Kent counsel made the defense that he was not criminally responsible, instead, he stated that “his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” Although he did everything to prove his client was not fully responsible, Kent was sentenced to serve five to fifteen for each count he was charged with, his counsel went before the Court Of Appeals, and asked for a revisal arguing that Petitioners detention and interrogation was unlawful, the police failed to notify his parents as well as follow the procedure of the juvenile act. The case was denied by the Court Of Appeals but overturned by the Supreme court. This resulted in the idea that there must be waiver hearings before a juvenile can be transferred to criminal court, as well as a juvenile can consult with his or her counsel before and during hearings. Another case that is very important for juvenile rights is In Re Gault (1967), A fifteen-year-old named Francis Gault along with his friend were taken into custody by the Arizona police, now was already on probation for a previous offense that involved being in the company who stole a wallet and purse. The reason he was taken into custody was a neighbor who was a victim of his rude, sexual remarks and the cops arrested him and put him in a detention center until

Christopher Simmons was 17 years old when he committed murder, he was arrested in September of 1993 after bragging to his school mates about killing an individual. Simmons thought because of his age the court will be lenient on him. The jury easily found him guilty, he was facing the death penalty. His attorney argued that the courts should take his age into consideration when sentencing Simmons, after all he was a minor when the murder was committed he was not old enough to vote or legally by a drink. The jury sentenced Simmons to death by lethal injection the deciding factor for them was the brutal nature that the crime of how the crime was committed. His case was then appealed to the Supreme court his attorney’s citing his

In the month of January 1992, Judge Laurence Gram Jr. was presiding over the Milwaukee County Circuit Court at the beginning of Jeffrey Dahmer’s trial. Defense Attorney Gerald Boyle represented the defendant Jeffrey Dahmer whilst District Attorney E. Michael McCann spoke for the state of Wisconsin. Dahmer was charged with murdering fifteen individuals. During the initial part of the court proceedings, Dahmer’s defense claimed that he was clinically insane. In due course, the jury had to decide whether this insanity claim was factual or not: Was Jeffrey Dahmer certifiably insane? Did his admission of guilt founded on mental illness stand up in court or was he sane and guilty? Was he or was he not in control of himself when he murdered fifteen

Because of the seriousness of Kent’s crime history, the prosecutor moved to try Morris in adult court. Without a hearing, the judge sent Kent to adult court, where he was found guilty and sentenced to 30 to 90 years in prison. The Supreme Court ruled against Kent, but the Justices said that in deciding whether to remove a case from juvenile court, judges must weigh a variety of factors, including the seriousness of the crime; the juvenile’s age; and the defendant’s criminal background and mental state. Because of this case, many states can try teenagers under 18 as adults for crimes such as murder, sexual assault, or possession or sale of drugs, with punishments that range up to life in prison without the possibility of parole (10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen

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 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.

In the case of Roper v. Simmons, Simmons was a seventeen-year-old teenager who committed a grotesque premeditated murder (Cornell University Law School, 2005). Subsequently, nine months after the murder Simmons turned eighteen, and the state of Missouri prosecuted Simmons as an adult, and he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Cornell University Law School, 2005). From the police reports and testimony, it was apparent Simmons was the instigator of the crime, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that capital punishment is unconstitutional for offenders under the age of eighteen (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling inhibits the courts from prosecuting juveniles as adults without considering age and other

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

"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,

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