Arguments Against Insanity Defense

If an insanity plea is successful, it can be implied that mental illnesses can be dangerous or harmful. Also, that the person with the mental illness is going to be treated and hopefully learn how to handle such an illness. Then perhaps that person can go free after a while. On the other hand, if an insanity plea is unsuccessful, then it can be implied that the person with the illness may not get treatment. Although, if the person is just using a mental illness as an excuse, then he or she is giving other people with a mental illness a bad name.

Colin Ferguson was convicted of the December 7, 1993 shooting of 25 people aboard the Long Island Rail Road commuter train out of Penn Station at Merillon Avenue station in Garden City, New York, New York. He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers: Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee, and Mike O'Connor. Ferguson's trial was notable for a number of unusual developments, including his firing of his defense counsel and insisting on representing himself and examining himself as a live witness.

My theory of this case is to believe this case wasn’t a case of insanity because this individual clearly planned his actions. Holmes stepped out of the movie theater and returned wearing protective gear. His outfit was described wearing a “ballistic helmet, protective gear for his legs, throat and groin, black gloves and a gas mask. He props open the door, before throwing two tear gas canisters into the theater” (“Colorado Theater”, 2017). According to officials, his apartment was wire “at the front door that would have touched off an array of explosives and flammable liquids” (“Colorado Theater”, 2017). Homes knew how to physically protect himself and his home. A man to be insane would have done his actions impulsive, not by covering his

The Durham Rule defines that the defendant cannot be claimed as guilty due to a mental disease and defect at the time; as for the Model Penal Code states as the defendant obtains a mental defect that causes the defendant unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. The stability found in Perry does not follow the guidelines or requirements of the insanity defense tests. During the times of the murders Perry was in search of the money that they were targeting, as he searched the houses he came across Nancy’s room and found a doll like purse obtaining a silver dollar. As he attempted to get a hold of the dollar he dropped it causing him to get down on his knees to grasp it. The pitiful moment when he knelt caused him to think, “I had to get down on my knees. And just then it was like i was outside myself. Watching myself in some nutty movie. It made me sick. I was just disgusted...here I am crawling on my to steal a child’s silver dollar. One dollar. And I’m crawling on my belly to get it.”  He said he felt as if he was watching himself and was disgusted as to what he could see himself doing at that occurring moment. If one were to be mentally dysfunctional they would not see or feel themselves in that type of

I do think that the media likes to exaggerate the amount of times that someone actually pleas for insanity. It’s a much more compelling story for a show if they have someone raving about they’re crazy. The public just needs to be informed about the issues

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we are here today to discuss the murder of John Wright. On November 15, Mr. Wright was found in his bed with a rope around his neck, presumably strangled to death. His body was discovered by his wife supposedly and did not bother to notify to the local authorities. At eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Hale went to look for Mr. Wright and found Minnie, Mr. Wright’s wife, sitting in a rocking chair inside of the house. Mr. Hale asked Minnie for her husband and she stated that John Wright was dead in the bedroom. Mr. Hale and his son, Harry, went upstairs and found the body in the bed with a rope around his neck. Alarmed, Mr. Hale told Harry to go to call the police through a telephone across the road while he stayed behind at the Wright's’ residence. The police then arrived to the scene of the crime and took Minnie into custody. We are here today to prove that Minnie Wright is guilty of the premeditated murder of her husband, John Wright.

In·sane /inˈsān/ (adjective) in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill. No one ever expects to go insane, no one knows when they are going insane, and in “The Tell-Tale Heart” by Edgar Allen Poe, the narrator doesn’t think he’s insane either. There is a debate on whether or not he is insane, but despite his opinion, and whoever else's, this narrator is insane, and this is proven by his lack of reason and his auditory hallucinations.

Those who are insane can be declared innocent if proven “not aware” of what they were doing when they were committing a crime and breaking the law. The mentally insane are able to be given smaller punishment, no jail time, or no punishment. These people are also given treatment for their mental illness but, it is not much better than imprisonment. These defendants may have committed a horrible crime, but will not be punished for it, because they are insane. Some defendants may use the insanity plea to escape imprisonment, but they are not truly insane. If you wouldn’t want a murderer to go free of punishment, then you don’t want a criminal to be innocent, because of their “mental illness”. The Insanity Defense should not exempt the mentally ill from prosecution for their crimes, reminding us that insanity is not an excuse for criminal actions.

The murderer is and was sane, and should serve jail-time. The murderer is sane because rather than the murderer thinking that the crime he committed was acceptable (as an insane person would), he instead knew that it was wrong, he also showed that he was in control of his actions when committed the murder. This contradicts the definition of insanity, as the definition reads, “Insanity is a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot manage his/her own affairs, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.”. However the murderer shows time and time again that he was in control, that he knew exactly what he was doing, and that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

I agree that the insanity defense is morally right. There are defects of the system. However, the criminal justice system’s foundation is made up of moral integrity. As a society we have decided to excuse those who lack the moral capabilities to know right from wrong. The murkiness of the system should not automatically equate to the abolishment of the defense. I agree with the author’s counter argument to the criticism of the defense being discriminatory towards those who are poor. The comparison is moot. The line between a poor person under extreme duress and a mentally ill person can be blurred at times. However, if a poor person commits a crime and are deemed mentally ill then, they should be excused. That is what society has deemed acceptable. It is not because society is cruel it is because we have decided that everyone should be acceptable for their actions, with the exception of individuals with mental illnesses. Also agree with the author when he stated that the effectiveness of the system would not be better if the defense was abolished. The efficiency of the system would not be contingent on the abolishment of the insanity defense. There are other problems that conflict the system and make it just as ineffective. The author’s argument that the new test that should be created should not be determinately defined is quite broad. The author should be a lot more specific when they talk about that the new test

When someone commits a crime, he or she may use mental illness as a defense. This is called an insanity plea or insanity defense. What the insanity defense does is try to give the alleged perpetrator a fair trial. At least in extreme cases, society agrees with this principle.The Insanity defense is probably one of the most controversial of all criminal defense strategies, and at the same time is one of the least used. In many cases when it has been used it has tended to cause public debate. The insanity defense confirms that the criminal defendant is not guilty because of his insanity. The theory of defense tells that people who are insane cannot have the intent necessary to commit a criminal action because they either do not know that action is wrong or cannot control their behavior even when they know the act is wrong. However, this theory is rather controversial as it is complicated to define insanity itself, and the situations in which it can be used to excuse criminal responsibility are complex to define

John White, the author of “Guilty Is Guilty, Insane or Not” an article written in The New York Times, creates an argument that he is clearly passionate about but also an argument that lacks substance. Published on February 25, 1979, the article is written during a time period where law and psychology were being introduced to each other. John White conceives an argument that when a plaintiff enters an insanity defense and is found not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect, he or she is virtually getting away with murder. This argument he presents is highly vague, has no evidence, and is also premature due to the changes within the legal system during this time.

Many people may believe they know about the insanity defense as it has been brought to the public’s eye in many popular trials. For example, the cases of John Hinckley, who attempted to murder President Ronald Reagan, and Andrea Yates, who drowned her five young children, were highly publicized cases where the defendant was found guilty by reason of insanity. While many people may be familiar with these cases or similar ones, the insanity defense is highly misunderstood and disliked. To help judges and juries conclude whether a person is insane, three models have been devised. There is a wide variety of tests from state to state; however, they all typically revolve around one of the three models. The models include the M’Naghten rule, the Durham

The insanity plea is one of the most controversial and problematic defense strategies used in court cases. It becomes so problematical when someone determines the sanity of a person, because where does the line cross from insane and sane. The insanity plea is the least common mechanism that defendants and lawyers use as a plea. Sometimes it is accurate and the defendant is treated properly in a mental institute for awhile; whereas in other cases it is used as “get out of jail free card.” Credibility is one of the hardest things to measure but insanity is the most difficult to judge.

While we have a justice system that is based off laws and cases that come before, and