The Argument Of The Insanity Defense

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.

“Totally deprived of his understanding and memory so as not to know what he [was] doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast” (Feigl 1995, 161).” What first started off as “complete madness” had evolved to the “Wild Beast” test after the twentieth century. Feigl had the perception that if a person does not understand what they had committed was wrong, then they have truly lost their humanity in an abyss of illusion. The Insanity Plea acts as a loop hole for defendants to be set free of any charges of the heinous crimes they committed. They should be able to find help and serve their charges at the same time. If states adopted the Guilty, But Mentally Insane verdict defendants and the community would all be in good hands. Defendants will be seeking help while serving their time. The community will find that justice was served.

We do not believe the jury in Anatomy of Murder was correct to acquit Manion based on the irresistible impulse variation of the insanity defense. Although the insanity defense is a legitimate defense to use during trials, the crime itself, by the accuser, should still be regarded as such. Instead of acquitting Manion completely and letting him go free of murder, the jury and judge should have ordered Manion to go through several supervised mental health recovery programs. We believe that it is extremely unfair and unjust for an accuser to be fully acquitted of a crime due to the negligence of their health or their lack of overall expectancy. Despite the fact that many suffer from mental health, the act of killing, such as the one in this film,

The insanity defense is perhaps the most difficult defense for members of the lay public to comprehend. On one hand, when a serial killer commits a string of horrific murders, he or she seems to fit any conceivable definition of being certifiably insane, but not all serial killers are found 'not guilty' by virtue of their insanity. On the other hand, many members of the public think the insanity defense itself is absurd and merely an excuse used by cunning defense attorneys to get their clients reduced jail time, or so the clients spend their confinement in a presumably nicer mental hospital than a prison.

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 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 most

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is a defense by excuse in criminal trials arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease. (“Insanity defense,” 2016)

In my opinion, the insanity defense should be in place for those individuals who are in fact mental incapable of fully understanding their actions. However, I perceive it as being used more often than actually applicable to people. Upon reading though, I was surprised that less than 0.2% of people have been found to be considered insane (Schweitzer, N.J., & Saks, M.J. (2011). As for the standards, I feel as if having either prior knowledge of the disorder or several expert opinions are needed to ensure the legitimacy of the plea. That being said, the neuroimaging should also be considered, if found to be more reliable and accurate upon further reflection. If a person is found to be legally insane, they should be treated medically as such. Furthermore,

What does the term "insanity" mean? A mental illnesses which are so severe and debilitating that prevents a person from functioning in a lawful socially acceptable manner. (google.com) A little history about psychiatric hospitals and how things were handled in the past. “The nation's first two psychiatric hospitals opened in the late-1700s. Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Va. opened Oct. 12, 1773. By 1880, there were 75 public psychiatric hospitals in the United States. In 1955 state mental institutions in the U.S. housed nearly 560,000 patients. By 1977, mental institutions reduced the size of their collective population to about 160,000." (A History of Mental Institutions in the United

In contrast to George Palermo, the authors of “Demythologizing Inaccurate Perceptions of the Insanity Defense,” Eric Silver, Carmen Cirincione, and Henry Steadman, provide their viewpoint on the insanity plea. They support the current version of the insanity plea and their reasoning is that people are only against the plea because they are not well informed about it. In a study of public opinion, data collected found that “91% of respondents agreed that ‘judges and juries have a hard time

We will look at, what the laws of the State of Arizona say, see stand the American Psychological Association’s takes on the insanity plea, what the experts say about the Daubert/Kuhmo Rules, and end with the M’Naghten Rule. Putting

Final judgments with the R-CRAS also show reasonable levels of agreement between examiners and triers of fact (96% with respect to sanity with lower levels of agreement on insanity (70%); Rogers, Cavanaugh, Seeman & Harris, 1984; see Rogers & Shuman, 2000 for a summary). These findings are in general accord with the levels of agreement between clinicians and courts found in other studies of final judgment that use no formalized interviews or rating scales (Golding, 1992). Unfortunately, all studies in this area appear to use criterion‑contaminated groups in that the examination process is part of the judicial/criteria determination (Zapf et al., 2006).

Society frequently puts protections in place for those that are seen as vulnerable. These protections tend to cover those who are unable to defend themselves or fully understand what is happening around them. One of these protections is the ability to use a mental illness, defect or disability as a legal defense referred to as an Insanity Defense. The introduction of this practice came in 1844, when the defense for Daniel M’Naghten of Glasgow, Scotland was able to get him a Not Guilty verdict in a murder case. The case asserted that because of Daniel M’Naghtens altered mental state, where he experienced extreme paranoia and delusions; he was unable to make a conscious decision to do wrong or right according to the law. (Schmalleger, 128)

Insanity defense is the most debated of all criminal defense approaches because it is tough to define when used to excuse criminal responsibilities. Some judges advise the jurors about criminal’s insanity and not being able to distinguish right from wrong when committing murder, yet it is up to the jury to decide if criminal should stand trial. In the late 1990’s court saw psychiatrist as another group of testimonial for jury consideration. But attorney’s claimed psychiatrist could not forecast that offender would not commit future crimes, therefore the offender would be a threat to society and must stand trial. Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity when face on trial may work for some criminals, but it does not work

The Butler Committee recommended that proof of severe mental disorder should be sufficient to negate responsibility. This would create a presumption of no criminal liability where this is proof of a mental disorder. However, this assumes that a lack of criminal responsibility simply because of a mental dysfunction is evident, rather than establishing a standard of criminal responsibility. This questions the application of insanity to all crimes rather than those involving mens rea only.

Insanity has made a particularly notable transition into the public eye over the past century. In America, this shift into visibility was marked mostly by Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, John Hinckley, Jr., and - most recently - James Holmes. Before -- and even while -- these individuals provided for nationwide, landmark exposure and attention to crimes committed by the mentally ill, certain precedents set by the Supreme Court further shaped how Americans viewed the culpability of these individuals. M’Naghten (1843) set the precedent for exculpation through ignorance of consequences, and Clark (2005) furthered this precedent by establishing a rigid introduction process for evidence. These decisions and further litigation to the courts set social precedents and norms that, in return, drove cyclical reinforcement of these principles and hinders dissent from established rules in adjudication. Therein lies a bind: while the philosophy on the issue may promote one approach to an issue, reinforced stereotypes and past decisions will reflect different priorities in the masses. In exploring the constituent lenses of philosophy, society, legality, and biology, one can holistically view the issue and see that biological dysfunction that hinders thought processes ideally exculpates an individual, but that the current precedents and views of moral