The Case Of John Wayne Gacy

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

Many believe if an individual is found innocent but insane, that person is sent to a psychiatric hospital. If they get better they can get out earlier than they were sentenced to no matter the crime committed. The insanity plea is not a “get out of jail free card” it is a rare exception that allows people who need it to be able to get the help that they need. The insanity defense is needed because it is a right that we are entitled to use if needed.

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 criminally insane need a special form of rehabilitation and should be granted to right to fight for this sentence. The insanity defense serves a definitive purpose in our legal system dismissing those who should truly be found innocent.

This paper is going to explain the research that I have done on the insanity defense in general, my own opinion on the use of pleading insanity, a recent case on the successful pleading of insanity to prevent a defendant from being criminally responsible, and the positives and negatives of the insanity defense. I am also going to do my best to explain what should happen to a criminal defendant after they are declared by the courts to be insane, as well citing all of my research.

Have you ever wondered what they did on multiple occasions with psychotic criminals up for sentencing in a court proceeding? In this paper it will clarify that answer, and much more in the final say in mentally ill individuals. The final decision in being mentally ill in a court proceeding is formally known as the Insanity defense plea. The Insanity defense plea is an act of protection for criminals who are not aware of their criminal conduct in sentencing from a judge. In this paper it will begin by explaining the history of the Insanity plea, and how it came about in today’s society of criminals. Next, the paper will educate readers on the process a mentally ill person goes through in order to be protected within this defense.

The insanity defense is a difficult defense for defendants to use and only 2% charged with serious crimes use it. Defendants who successfully use the insanity defense are found not guilty by reason of insanity and they are committed to a mental institution. They are kept in a mental institution until they are no longer mentally ill and a threat to society. When using the insanity defense it is up to the defendant to prove that he/she is insane by a preponderance of the evidence. There is three rules/test that can be used in an insanity case they are: the M’Naghten rule, the “Product of Mental Illness” rule, and the “Substantial Capacity” test.

When someone is convicted of a crime they are sometimes given the option to plead not guilty by the reason of insanity. The insanity plea is somewhat controversial considering that a person must lack either morals (from having brain damage and or an intellectual impairment) or have been diagnosed with a mental disorder when the crime happened causing them the inability to follow the law (Rubinstein, 2013). Some people may look at the insanity defense and feel that it is not fair regardless of mental health that a person can be allowed to plead not guilty and get away with a crime they been proven to have committed or get a less severe punishment. Do you think that the insanity defense is a fair and logical plea for a person who has been convicted of a crime?

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

According to one source (2011, Black’s Law, Bryan A. Garner) insanity is “Any mental disorder sever enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility, insanity is a legal, not a medical, standard.” Another source states “In order for one person to be considered for the insanity plea, they must have a psychiatric evaluation and prove they were insane during the committing of the crime.”(1965, Psychiatric Justice, Thomas S. Szasz, M.D) If someone pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, than they undergo mental rehabilitation. The length of time in the mental rehabilitation is determined by how long it takes the individual to be mentally prepared to re-appear in court. After the individual is fit for re-trial, the individual returns to court and will than plead guilty or not guilty. In most trials, the defendant serves a punishment that is not as severe as it was

The history of the insanity plea is highly extensive. The highly controversial plea has given serial killers, rapists, and criminals the opportunity to get a reduced sentence if they prove that they are not mentally stable. The insanity plea has been around longer than some people may think, dating all the way back to the Roman Empire. Some of the current tests that determine if someone is legally insane are the M’Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code. People who would take these tests are well known killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.

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

I think that using insanity as a defense for a crime is acceptable. The burden of proof should lie on the defendant to prove his case. Although I do not think a person found to be insane should be set free. A guilty but mentally ill verdict should be applied as it is done by other states. Under the GBMI verdict, the defendant is sentence the same as if her or she is guilty. This will allow for treatment till the defendant is deemed cured and can serve the rest of their sentence in prison. I do think that California should still use the M’Naghten Rule but by applying the GBMI verdict will help in removing dangerous people from the street. We may also benefit with the addition of the Irresistible Impulse Test. This will help to narrow down

The availability of the insanity defense does not allow a large number of dangerous criminals to be free. The reason for this is because the standards for legal insanity is very high. Insanity is mental or psychological impairment used as defense against a criminal case. Insanity defense rests on the assumption that someone who is insane at the time of a crime lacks capacity to form mens rea.

Insanity is something defendants use in court that could determine whether they are guilty or innocent. Insanity can serve as defense against criminal acts without requiring an intent. Even if a defendant calls for an insanity plea he still has to be evaluated by a doctor. Doctors no longer use the word “insanity” or “madness” they will find the specific psychological disorder the defendant may have. The most controversial psychological disorder being temporary