“There are three times as many mentally ill in U.S. prisons as in the country 's mental health hospitals, suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression, among other illnesses,” (Fellner, 2004). This statistic is heart shattering, when knowing so many helpless individuals are not getting assistance with their medical complications. Inexperienced staff, unsatisfactory specialized facilities, and limited programs leave prisoners without the treatment they need. This is why mentally ill individuals need treatment. When a mentally ill person is sentenced without the insanity plea, he or she is not getting the medical attention needed. If the jurors do believe the defendant is insane, the defendant is then treated until …show more content…
Critics of the insanity plea often contend that a crime is still a crime, and it does not matter who committed it, sane or insane. Opponents of this defense also question, “They are criminals, so who cares if they are sent away?” In truth, it is still a crime, however, this crime cannot be considered guilty, if the defendant had no criminal intent to do so. When dealing with a person who is mentally incapable to comprehend and do certain things, one must analyze their thought process. Some people are eminently schizophrenic, and believe they are doing the world a favor by “eliminating” another individual. They believe that their “target” is going to do wrong to the world, another person, or themselves. In some cases, the defendant hears voices he believes are telling them to commit these crimes to protect himself. This crime then becomes, in the mind of the defendant, a crime of self defense. Although the victim has not done anything outstandingly wrong, the defendant still believes that the victim is out to get them. If someone so mentally obstructed cannot comprehend reality, then sending them to prison, without medical attention, will not make them automatically understand their wrong doings. These people are still human beings, and they need help, therapy, and medicine, to better their life and their medical
At the 2002 trial, Yates pleaded not guilty, by using the insanity defense. The insanity defense argues that an individual should not be found guilty of a crime if they have a persistent psychiatric disease at the time the crime was committed. It was proved that Yates could tell right from wrong, so she did not meet the definition of the insanity in Texas (Walsh). The jury deliberated for almost four hours, and finally found Yates guilty. The jury rejected her insanity defense, and Yates was sentenced to life in prison.
In the field of criminal law there is a certain type of criminal defense that comes to the court and has a low success rate. These cases concern the mental capacity of the defendant and if they have enough mental capacity, or are sane enough, to be aware of their crime and consequences of crime. The insanity defense is extremely rare because of how difficult it is for the defense to prove to the court and jury that the defendant did not have the mental capacity to understand what they did wrong and the consequences from it. The case of Myers III v. State of Indiana is one example of criminal responsibility and mental capacity. This case has information that can be connected to the textbook with the insanity defense tests, mental competence
Dr. Mark Nolan, Senior Lecturer at ANU College of Law, says that the NGRI plea “enables defendants to avoid criminal liability and standard criminal punishment” (Nolan 8). The main disagreement with America is the focus whether if the “guilty defendant” pursues to misuse the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” as an alternative to imprisonment or if the criminally accused was at the time of committing the crime “clinically insane” and in need psychotherapy. Therefore, during this discussion of opposing viewpoints concerning the insanity defense being misused or ethical are going to be
In refers to class discussion, as a result of the M’Nagthen case, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA) is only use when the defendant does not understand the nature of the crime committed. Therefore, although neurosis or personality disorders qualify as a mental disease according to the DSM-5; the law has eliminated these types of disorders from being utilized in courts as a form of defense. The law has also excluded the irresistible impulse or inabilities to comply with the rules as a means of defense in the federal
During this trial I will convince you, the jury, that my client is innocent by reason of insanity. The legal definition of insanity is that a person cannot tell reality from fantasy, they cannot control their their behavior or they could not tell right from wrong because of a mental illness or mental defect. Page one of my clients’ confession states he hears voices. “ I hear all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell.”
Another issue that the American prison systems were facing was their constant practice of locking away mentally ill individuals to very long prison sentences that only seriously worsened their conditions, and even made their chances of overcoming mental illness, nearly impossible. Even medications that were prescribed to these individuals made them suffer serious and sometimes even worse, side effects. Although some states banned the high rates of mentally ill individuals to prisons, this only meant they were more targeted and thrown in jail for petty offenses by police. Many prisons do not have the resources, nor the skills needed to adequately and appropriately care for the mentally ill, therefore many of them suffer and even die from this
Most mentally ill people who are convicted on capital charges should not be executed, for three such reasons. Firstly, the executions would violate equal protection of the laws in any jurisdiction in which execution of children and people with mental illness of any kind that psychologically cannot fully comprehend what they are committing is barred. Secondly, many death sentences imposed on people with mental illness violate due process more so because their mental illness is treated by the aggravating factor, either directly or to create a separate aggravating circumstance. Thirdly, many mentally ill offenders, who are sentenced to death, will be so impaired to what is fully going on at the time of execution that they can not emotionally understand the significance of their punishment. Thus, they cannot be executed under the eighth amendment; Regarding this, the latter conclusion is required even if they are cured through some sort of treatment.
Untreated mental illness is dangerous and over time we have learned that locking people with a mental illness is not the solution but makes it worse. People with untreated mental illness face many consequences. “People with untreated psychiatric illnesses comprise 250,000 people, of the total homeless population” (mentalillnesspolicy.org). The quality of life for these individuals is extremely heart breaking, and many are victimized regularly.
The insane are known to have been cursed with unclean spirits ever since the beginning of America who takes its views from the Old World. It was only during the Second Great Awakening that people, Christian activists and often women, sought to reform the prisons and asylums. For Americans, asylums are now remnants of the past; the mentally ill are now bestowed the right to live normal lives and they are now even given the choice to decide if they wish to seek help and take medication. Even so, it is undeniable that people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are unwillingly trapped inside a mind often not their own. Some of them, if left alone and uncared for, face dangers in society.
Their are around 500,000 mentally ill people that are put away in prisons and jails. In the documentary “The New Asylums”,Ohio's state prison system reveals the issues that are ongoing with mentally ill inmates. The major problem we have today is that no one is taking care of the people of these people. Most mentally ill people live by themselves with no family or friends to take care of them and they are off their medications. The mentally ill come in to prison on non violent offenses such as disturbing the peace, trespassing, etc. After leaving mental hospitals they usually end up on the streets and become homeless.
A greek philosopher named Aristotle once said “If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act, for they cannot be said to have any understanding or will.” The insanity plea is an immensely controversial topic. Some of history’s most heinous criminals have exploited it. Its controversy stems from the notion that those who claim insanity are absolved of responsibility for their crimes. The insanity plea also commonly called the insanity defense is shockingly hardly used and has an exceedingly even lower success rate.
Although, just because they have a mental illness, doesn't mean that's the reason they did their crime. I believe the insanity defense could have been the best outcome for the defendant, because they would have been treated for their mental
The court dismisses the plea quickly because “the justice system ignores psychosocial complexities and histories in favor of black and white definitions of right and wrong” (Myers). The justice system in this time very rarely accepted pleas of insanity or mental illness. Capote wrote that “after an hour’s conversation with the defendants, the doctor rule[d] out that neither man
Do you believe the insane should be held responsible for their criminal acts? The narrator in this story murdered a old man. We are figuring out if he is guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. The narrator is not guilty by reason of insanity because he killed the victim because of his eye which is not sane, he thought that his own guilt was the dead old man 's heartbeat, and he had officers sit where the victim 's corpse lies.
“A man must be presumed sane and a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary is proved… to establish a defence of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, and if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong” A set of rules arose from the judgement of this case, and they are still relevant today. They are as follows. “(1) A partial delusion will be no defence if the defendant still knew that his actions were against the law. (2) Every person is presumed to be sane and therefore accountable for his actions, until the contrary is